African Land Questions, the State and Agrarian Transition:
Contradictions of Neoliberal Land Reforms
Sam Moyo
10 May 2004
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Conceptual issues and perspectives on the land and agrarian question ...................... 5
2.1 The land question in the era of neoliberal developmentalism............................................................. 6
2.2 The unique and diverse land questions of Africa............................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Is there a land question in Africa? ................................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 Elements of Africa’s agrarian question ............................................................................................ 20
2.2.3 An overview of African land struggles.............................................................................................. 24
3.0 African land Questions: Trends and Tendencies......................................................... 26
3.1 The land distribution question: trends and sources........................................................................... 26
3.1.1 Settler colonial land expropriation and racial land inequalities ..................................................... 29
3.1.2 Class based land inequalities: land concentration from ‘above’ and ‘below’................................. 32
3.1.2.1 Growing land scarcities, declining land sizes and poverty......................................................... 32
3.1.2.2 Land control differentiation........................................................................................................ 35
3.1.3 African migrations: labour, land access and exclusion ................................................................... 41
3.1.4 Ethnic and regional differentiation in land control and inequalities ............................................... 43
3.1.5 Foreign control of land: agriculture, mining and natural resources ............................................... 47
3.2 Unequal land rights, discriminatory tenure systems and land market concentration ................... 52
3.2.1 Introductory remarks ........................................................................................................................ 52
3.2.2 African land tenure systems: customary, tenure and landed property rights................................... 53
3.2.3 Statutory and private land tenure systems: the evolution of land markets....................................... 59
3.2.4 Concluding comment: land tenure, land productivity and agrarian transition ............................... 66
3.3 Agrarian ‘transition’ in Africa: land use patterns and distorted growth........................................ 67
3.3.1 Agrarian capitalism, landed property rights and land use trajectories ........................................... 67
3.3.2 Extroverted land use policies and discriminatory land use regulations .......................................... 71
3.3.3: The peasant and ‘merchant’ capital paths of land use: large versus small farmers ...................... 75
3.3.4 Land use regulation, land degradation and environmental sustainability....................................... 78
3.3.5 Concluding comments....................................................................................................................... 80
3.4 The African urban land questions ....................................................................................................... 81
3.4.1 The location and sources of the urban question ............................................................................... 81
3.4.2 The unique roots of the African city and land conflict ..................................................................... 82
3.4.3 Urban informal settlements, homelessness and land occupation movements .................................. 84
3.4.4 Concluding comments....................................................................................................................... 85
i
4.0 Gender land inequalities and tenure insecurity........................................................... 85
4.1 Patriarchy, power relations and unequal gender land rights ........................................................... 85
4.2 Patterns of gender based land inequities ............................................................................................ 88
4.3 Concluding remarks: advocacy for women’s land rights.................................................................. 90
5.0 The African state, land reform and politics ................................................................. 91
5.1 The African state, land policy and primitive accumulation.............................................................. 92
5.2 The state and land reforms in Africa .................................................................................................. 96
5.2.1 Redistributive land reforms: state-led and market ‘assisted’ tendencies ......................................... 97
5.2.2 Land tenure reforms........................................................................................................................ 102
5.3 Local state governance and customary land tenure administration .............................................. 107
5.4 Concluding comments: land reform outcomes and impacts. .......................................................... 112
6.0 Social movements, civil society and land reform ....................................................... 114
6.1 Social movements, land rights and struggle ..................................................................................... 114
6.2 The organisation of land struggles..................................................................................................... 116
6.3 Neo-liberal land advocacy and the co-optation of land reform ...................................................... 119
6.4 Land occupation movements of peasants and others....................................................................... 124
6.5 Ethno-regional movements; successionism and revolts................................................................... 128
6.6 Concluding comment .......................................................................................................................... 129
7.0 Conclusions and suggested research directions ......................................................... 129
7.1 Concluding remark ............................................................................................................................. 135
8.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 136
ii
1.0 Introduction
In recent times Africa’s land question has received growing research and policy attention largely because
of concern over persistent food insecurity and rural poverty. Yet the incidence of increased conflicts over
land rights has not been sufficiently studied. In some countries citizenship is increasingly being contested
in relation to land rights and ‘belonging’ (Geschiere and Nyamnjoh, 2000). The land question in Africa
highlights the neglect of social justice and equity issues during the era of neoliberal economic reforms as
witnessed by growing trends of unequal control of land and natural resources (Moyo, 2000, Palmer,
2002). The escalation since 2000 of the land conflict in Zimbabwe is but one of numerous land and
political struggles which reflect growing calls for land reforms and reparations on the continent. The land
question has become internationalised, not least because it mirrors the incomplete decolonisation
processes in ex-settler colonies, but also because global finance capital is increasingly entangled in
conflicts over land, minerals and natural resources in Africa’s rich enclaves.
While these issues suggest the need for critical reflection on Africa’s land issue, the available research on
the land question tends to be tangential, conceptually loose and generally inadequate. The most pressing
research concern must be to understand the precise nature of the African land question, its land reforms
and their effects on development. To unravel the roots of land conflicts in Africa requires thorough
understanding of the complex social and political contradictions, which have ensued from colonial and
post-independence land policies, as well as from Africa’s ‘development’ and capital accumulation
trajectories, especially with regard to the land rights of the continent’s poor. This begs the fundamental
question about the capacity of emerging neo-liberal economic and political regimes in Africa to deliver
land reforms which address growing inequality and poverty. Moreover, it questions our understandings of
the nature of popular demands for land reforms (Moyo and Yeros, 2004), and the extent to which the
African state has the requisite inclination and autonomy to address its emergent land questions under
current global political and economic structures.
We argue that Africa’s land and agrarian questions have specific historical tendencies and a contemporary
expression which not well recognised partly because they are qualitatively different from the experience
in other regions of the ‘global south’. The essence of this land question has not been adequately
conceptualised by the plethora of ‘new wave’ policies and studies on land in Africa (see for instance:
Toulmin and Quan 2000; Palmer, 2002; World Bank, 2002, EU land policy Guidelines, 2004). Nor has
scholarship rigorously queried the assertion by some scholars that Africa does not have a significant land
question, except in the former settler colonies, given the absence of widespread land expropriation
1
(Mafeje, 1999). This suggests the need to review the effects of the longer term processes of capital
accumulation, proletarianisation (see also Arrighi, 1978), as well as the effects of indirect colonial rule on
the African land question (see also Hopkins, 1973; Mamdani, 1996).
Available empirical data indicates emerging trends of rural land concentration alongside expanded
‘illegal’ land occupations, and a tendency for various rural populations to be marginalised from land by a
growing number of agrarian capitalists, elites and state agents. This trend, together with the incipience of
specific problems over land rights, inheritance and selective exclusion, which arise from changes in the
essences of African land tenure systems, especially during the last few decades, is built upon underlying
processes of unequal gender relations and class differentiated access to the means of production, in ways
which are peculiar to Africa. We suggest that Africa has witnessed the emergence in recent decades of a
relatively ‘unique’ land question.
Increasing urbanization in sub-Saharan Africa (estimated at 38%) is partially a reflection of the
complexity of this emergent land question, rather than an indication of its irrelevance, as has often been
argued. Growing pressure on land resources for urban livelihoods in proliferating slums and informal
settlements (Simone, 1998) and in coastal settlements (Kanyinga, 2000) reflect, quite apart from the
effects of high population growth rates, the intensified quest by the land-short and unemployed for urban,
peri-urban and rural land. Persistent rural-to-urban migration in a context of limited non-agricultural
employment in Africa, suggests that a growing (not a declining) number of households continue to
depend for their basic social reproduction on access to adequate land. Inadequate access to land persists in
the framework of the gradual semi-proletarianisation of peasant labour and the expanded marginalisation
of African peasantries. Voluntary and involuntary internal migrations and involuntary displacement, as
well as changes in the land use systems over the last four decades, have reinforced inequalities in land
control and generated new generations of land conflicts. Taken together these processes suggest a
complex land question.
To assume that a land question in Africa can only arise out of a particular generic social formation or
social process, as found for instance under the landholding monopolies of feudal, semi-feudal and
tributary systems, or under settler colonialism, is to miss the salience of gradually growing land
concentration and inequality over the long term, and the scattered but significant struggles to regain
control over land. While the unequal patterns of land distribution may be more localized and occur on
smaller scales than has been characteristic of land questions elsewhere, they amount to a socially
2
significant land question. In this relative context, Africa’s land question must be conceptualised in terms
of the nature of existing struggles for access to land and its secure use, especially the struggles to reclaim
alienated land rights. Struggles for land, which tend to be conceived in post-modern or pre-modern
‘discourses’ of the ‘meanings’ of land, which in Africa are perceived as a multiplicity of largely atavistic
values of attachment to land, can best be understood in terms of the objective marginalisation of African
livelihoods and organised resistance against the loss of land rights.
Moreover, the land question in Africa needs to be examined in the wider context of struggles over land
rights “embedded” in the control, by external capital and the state, of extensive lands which harbour
minerals and other valuable natural resources. As the exchange value of natural resources expands with
growing global markets for tourism, forestry, bio-technology and new minerals, more African land is
being concessioned into external control. Civil wars, migration and involuntary displacements and intercountry wars tend also to be symptomatic of increasing conflicts over control and access to such lands and
key natural resources by both domestic and external forces. These land conflicts also reflect the particular
gender, class and other social cleavages, and the subordinated power relations characteristic of the neocolonial African state.
The dominance of external financial and development aid institutions in Africa’s policy making processes
and markets is organic to most of the emergent land conflicts. Pressures for the growing marketisation of
land reflect both external interests in economic liberalisation and foreign access to land and natural
resources, as well as the increasing internal class struggles over primitive accumulation by a broadening
African indigenous capitalist class. New land policies justify these tendencies of unequal land control, but
generate growing conflicts over land allocation and use, across class, gender, nationality and ethnic lines,
and have even yielded xenophobia over minority land rights in some countries. Variegated struggles at
varying scales and localities over escalating unequal access to and control of land represent a real land
question in both rural and urban Africa.
Africa’s land question cannot be understated from the perspective of the mistaken perception that the
continent has an abundance and not a scarcity of land resources. Nor can it be assumed away or subsumed
by the wider problem of Africa’s agricultural crisis, characterised by the absence of an agrarian transition,
based upon lack of agricultural technological transformation and agro-industrial articulation. In terms of
the agrarian basis of the land question, it is notable that the extent of developed arable and irrigable land
available for agriculture on the continent is limited, despite the continent’s large size. While farming
3
techniques generally remain ‘backward’, pressures on land arising from both demographic growth and the
concentration of arable landholding, have led to land scarcities in numerous localities, despite the
incidence of land use intensification in some regions of a number of countries. The extensive degradation
of fragile land resources and increasing elite control of the prime lands under conditions of arable and
grazing land scarcity, reflect the uneven distribution of land and the resultant contradictions of extensive
land use and low productivity, which arise from constrained technical change and ineffective social
relations of production.
There is reason to believe that food security and poverty eradication can be achieved through vibrant
agriculture and natural resources sectors, which balance access to land resources and promote an agrarian
transition based upon land use policies directed at the internal market. ‘Pro-poor’ ‘poverty reduction
strategies’ have been notably negligent of the fact that diminishing access to land and, inadequate
strategies to mobilize financial and human resources to effectively develop land use, are a fundamental
constraint to development. The relative decline of agricultural production for domestic food and industrial
requirements, vis-à-vis population growth and urban relocation, is central to Africa’s development
dilemma. The concentration of income and consumption among the wealthier few and in better endowed
regions, in relation to access to land and extroverted land uses, limits the growth of the African domestic
market and the accumulation of capital for investment in the optimal utilisation of land based resources.
This land use problem is reinforced by unequal trade relations and limited agro-industrial growth in
Africa, given that its development strategy is not based on a viable industrialisation project.
The African land question however has to be interrogated not only in relation to the agrarian question, but
also in the multi-faceted context of unequal control of land which is tied to production processes in
industries such as tourism, mining, and forestry. The contradictions of internal and external interests in
these industries is critical. Africa’s rich and diverse mineral and biological resources are of global
significance, as is noted for instance by NEPAD, but these are of greater importance for addressing its
internal consumption and economic development deficits. A possible transition from the overwhelming
direct dependence on land for employment and consumption by the majority population requires a more
complex view of the land distribution and utilisation questions.
These broad based social and economic sources of struggles for land in Africa, and their wider politics,
require renewed research efforts to uncover the changing land questions faced by the continent. The
analysis required ought to traverse the class, ethnic and gender basis of land struggles, and appreciate the
4
role of the state and social movements in the politics of land. This monograph examines three aspects
which appear to define the scope of Africa’s land question: land distribution, land tenure and land
utilisation issues. Chapters three and four discuss these and their gender dimensions. The experiences of
land reform in Africa, focusing on the role of the state in land reform, administration and land conflict
mediation, are discussed in chapter five. Then, chapter six discusses the mobilisation of various social
forces and movements to defend or challenge unequal land relations. We conclude the monograph by
outlining some areas for further research. The next chapter contextualises the study by reviewing global
perspectives on the land and agrarian question and by further conceptualising the African land question.
2.0 Conceptual issues and perspectives on the land and agrarian question
Recent debates on the land and agrarian question the raise doubts about relevance of land reform in the
current context of globalisation. Some argue that in the era of unipolar power relations, neo-liberalism has
resolved the agrarian question in the north, through a process of market liberalisation, productivity growth
and growing bio-technological substitutionism in agriculture, it is plausible to predict the end of the
“classic” land and agrarian reforms, even if reforms may have isolated relevance in parts of the south
(Bernstein, 2002). In the African context they perceive a process of the socio-economic destruction of its
peasantries and their limited social capacity to wage struggles for radical land redistribution, thus limiting
the potential significance of popular land reforms, except to a limited extent under some unique and
contrived conditions such as in southern Africa (see Bernstein 2002).
Yet the uneven development of global agrarian structures of production and markets, distorted by
“northern” manipulation of northern agricultural markets and by structural adjustments programmes
(SAPs), has depressed agricultural production and deflated prices in the ‘south’, and provoked even more
intense land questions and resistance to neo-liberalism. Evidence from Latin America and to a lesser
degree in Africa, suggests the re-emergence of land struggles, based on new social movements and
political alliances, which challenge emergent land and agrarian markets because of the growing
concentration of landholdings and the widespread marginalisation and poverty of the peasantry and semiproletarian classes (Petras and Veltmeyer 2001; Ghimire 2001; Moyo 2001, Yeros, 2000, Moyo and
Yeros, 2004). What therefore is the land question in the context of the agrarian question, during the
current era of neo-liberalism? How is the land question expressed itself on the African continent?
This chapter discusses briefly the concept of the land question within the broad historical context of land
and agrarian reform during the last six decades and provides an overview critique of competing
perspectives on these issues. In particular, we develop an overview argument on the unique nature of
5
Africa’s land questions and the imperatives for land reform. In doing so the chapter defines conceptual
framework and some themes improve our understanding of Africa’s land questions, as elaborated upon in
chapters 3.0 to 6.0. We begin with the debates on the changing nature of the land and agrarian questions at
a global level.
2.1 The land question in the era of neoliberal developmentalism
Bernstein (2002) following the seminal work of Byres (1991; 1996), argues that it is useful to distinguish
three aspects of the ‘classic’ agrarian question. Firstly the agrarian question concerns the role of various
agrarian classes (different peasant classes, agricultural workers) in struggles for democracy and socialism.
Secondly it concerns the transformation of the social relations of production and development of the
productive forces in agriculture in transitions to capitalism. Thirdly it addresses how such transformations
contribute, or otherwise, to the accumulation of capital resources on a classic transition toward the
capitalist mode of production (Rodney, 1982; Lenin, 1964). The distinctive feature of such progression
was that it would trickle to the peripheries or adjacent ‘backward’ regions and thus would be beneficial to
‘backward’ societies. This teleology of the agrarian transition however has not only been a subject of
theoretical contestation, but can be questioned on its empirical relevance in general.
Most radical strategies to counteract this agrarian capitalist transition focused on nationalization of land
for the benefit of the majority (Veltmeyer, 2004). Landlords, who under feudal conditions had contributed
to deepening the poverty of the landless through relentless extraction of labour and land rentals, were the
target of land reform. Collectivization of agriculture aimed to resolve the ‘technical’ problem of
agricultural production by establishing economies of scale as a basis of mechanization and ‘scientific
farming’ (Bernstein, Ibid). Such ‘socialist primitive accumulation’ assumed the de-accumulation of
capital and labour among a few landlords who had accumulated land through rentals and further land
acquisition from peasants. Therefore agrarian collectivization marked a definitive resolution to the
problem of agrarian class accumulation and the conflicts and tensions of the worker-peasant alliance, visà-vis landlords and emerging capitalists.
While over the last six decades global land struggles varied and yielded contradictory processes and
uneven patterns of land redistribution strategies within the wider ‘agrarian transition’, their political goal
was to correct historical social injustices and the contradictory development trajectories that had become
entrenched. Redistributive land reform became a commonly a defined goal, (and achievement) of the land
struggles waged by peasants, but their results did not lead to more balanced agrarian development and
accumulation in the ‘south’, for various reasons. Firstly, land redistribution is not a necessary condition of
6
transition from pre-capitalist to capitalist landed property and production (Bernstein 2002). Secondly
redistributive land reforms did not lead to class differentiation based on labour and capital accumulation
(Ibid).
Bernstein (2002) argues that “… the emblematic slogan of redistributive land reform - that of ‘land to the
tiller’ - was embraced in various political conjunctures by bourgeois modernizers and nationalists,
socialists and communists, and of course, as a definitive principle, by agrarian populists. While associated
with different class forces and political programmes, they all shared an antipathy to predatory landed
property and its reactionary weight (political and cultural as well as economic).” Sustained rural
marginalisation in Asia and Latin America albeit their numerous land reforms is ample evidence of this.
Fernandes (2001), referring to land reform as one of the elements of the agrarian question, argues that
when agrarian reform is not implemented, the landless intensify the struggle for land through occupations,
thus forcing governments to implement land reforms focused on new rural settlements. The resolution of
the squatting conditions of settlers, through land tenure regularization, and settlements implanted as a
result of an occupation, in itself defines the struggle for land reform. These settlement policies based on
the purchase of occupied land are not agrarian reform per se, and should not be designated as such, since
to speak of agrarian reform there needs to exist a policy and a plan with objectives and goals for land
tenure de-concentration (Fernandes, 2001). Indeed debates such as those held today, over whether or not
to settle and how resettlement should be carried out, tend to suggest that the question of agrarian reform is
losing force, and that the concept has been banalised, such that everything becomes agrarian reform,
(Fernandes, 2001). This suggests that the land question and land reform need to be understood in their
larger structural context of the agrarian transition.
Post independence Africa has been generally shaped by transitions to capitalism with the various states
following somewhat different trajectories with varied impacts on land distribution and agrarian relations
of production. Reed (2001) describes this post independence process as “… rent-seeking state capitalism
[which] became the principal form of capital accumulation in the mining, agriculture and energy
sectors…”. Bernstein (2002) refers to this period as the “moment of developmentalism”, within various
possible development paths which could be taken by different economies in their transition to capitalism.
Furthermore, neo-liberal economic policy reforms deployed during the 1980s and 1990s to liberalise
markets, especially land and agrarian markets were embraced by national bourgeoisies, which co-opted
organised working class politics, but failed to effect an agrarian transition, while provoking various land
7
questions. Struggles for land in Africa have tended to grow over the last two decades in tandem with
massive rural social dislocations, increased poverty, growing insecurity over land and natural resource
property rights, and numerous violent conflicts over the control of the resources and the state which
accompanied SAPs.
In general and across the ‘south’, the neoliberal response since the 1990s’, has focused on ‘new’ market
based rather than radical land reform approaches. However land redistribution programmes based
primarily on market land transactions and credit provision are universally contested (Ghimire, 2000;
Borras, 2001). These have been proscribed or initiated in response to real popular struggles to control land
through organized social actions at the local level. Recent state initiatives to redistribute land in the
context of externally imposed structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) lending have generally
influenced the evolution of land reform policy towards elitist land market agendas and agrarian capitalist
development.
Bernstein (Ibid) proposes that the state-led development era marked the end of “state activism in
capitalism”, under the influence of Soviet socialism and its various mutations of state socialisms, and this
coincided with the last wave of significant examples of redistributive land reform. Veltmeyer (2003)
however sees the new model of neoliberal capitalist development as having created an entirely new
context for the dynamics of land struggle in different parts of the world. In Africa the contradictory
tendencies of both pauperisation and accumulation, which SAPs effected, increased the social pressure for
redistributive land reform in various African countries, among both elites and the poor, setting the stage
for class based land struggles throughout the continent (Moyo, 2000).
A new paradigm based on globalisation and neoliberal precepts of free markets has led to a complex
conceptualization of the relationship of land and the agrarian question. Bernstein (2002) argues that the
classic agrarian question based on the transition to capitalism and the logic of its various elements (e.g.
reducing the cost of labour power through cheaper staple foods), has been undermined by speculative
capitalist development on a global scale. Overproduction with all its ramifications is now well established
as a key structural tension of contemporary capitalist agriculture.
In effect, the agrarian question of capital has been resolved on a world scale without its resolution—as a
foundation of national development/accumulation, generating comprehensive industrialisation and wage
employment—in most of the poorer countries of the South. This is to neither say that there might not be
8
other sources and mechanisms of (industrial) accumulation (Bernstein 1996/7), nor that the agrarian
question of labour is thereby consigned to the dustbin of history. Bernstein’s proposition is based on the
observation that the circuits of domestic/‘national’ economies intersect with, and are increasingly shaped
by those of global patterns of production, divisions of labour, markets for finance and commodities, and
forms of regulation by transnational capital (Bernstein 2002).
The state in general has therefore been essentially complicit in the maintenance or defence of the
dominant social relations of production, including their foundation on land property rights. As others
argue, agricultural transformation over the years, has seen the state play an instrumental role in the
foundation, extension, reproduction and transformation of the agrarian and wider economic system to the
benefit of some classes—most often the large landowners—and disadvantaging mainly workers and
peasants (Veltmeyer, 2003 citing Feder, 1971; Huizer, 1973). The growth of ‘the market’ is inexorably
linked to an ‘activist state’, as is the process of agrarian reform, whereby the state has been the central
institution in the process of changing the dominant relations of economic production and the class systems
based on this process (Ibid). The repressive apparatus of the state has been brought into play in numerous
occasions, in different historical contexts, to maintain the existing regime of property in the means of
production, while the judiciary has been called upon to play its part in this regard (Ibid).
In general, state led land reforms, including external initiatives, attempt to accommodate and co-opt
peasants and their organisations, and civil society agencies, through setting up parallel or governmentcontrolled peasant and civil society organisations (Ibid). These processes tend to unleash class conflicts
that underlie more radical phases of land reforms in which governments have instituted programmes to
prevent radicalisation, using strategies of corporatism and co-opting peasant and civil society leaderships,
and outright repression (Thorpe, et. al. 1995).
Veltmeyer (2003) argues that in each phase of capitalist modernisation the state has played a crucial role
in promoting, financing and protecting the dominant ‘modernising’ classes from the threat of peasant and
rural worker movements, forcing the rural proletariat and peasantry to bear the costs of ‘transition’. These
processes reappeared in the 1980s, in the transition towards a neoliberal ‘new world order’ via structural
adjustment programmes (Gwynne and Kay, 1999; Kay, 1999; Thiesenhusen, 1989, 1995). Those mainly
disadvantaged by these neoliberal strategies, in Latin America for instance, were the peasantry and rural
workers as shown by the virulence of their opposition and periodic outbreaks of rural violence (Barry,
1987; Veltmeyer 1997; and Petras, 2000).
9
The role of the state in land reform has gradually been re-oriented in tandem with global pressure for free
market and private enterprise and popular notions against this, focusing debate on alternative forms of
agrarian and land reform on promoting land markets as a means of improving the access of poor
households to society’s ‘productive resources’—to expand ‘use of the market mechanism in the process of
agrarian development (Ghimire, 2001), within the dominant model of rural development predicated on the
accumulation of ‘social capital’ rather than the natural capital embedded in the land ( Veltmeyer (2003)
citing Coleman, 1988; Chambers and Conway, 1998; Helmore and Singh, 2001; Woolcock and Narayan,
2000).
Social capital among the poor, namely their capacity to network and act cooperatively, ostensibly reduces
the pressure on governments to expropriate and redistribute land (Ibid). Similarly, class or state power
(central in land struggles), is depoliticised and replaced by ‘social empowerment’ projects (Veltmeyer,
2003 citing Amalric, 1998; Brockett, 1998). Since landlessness and lack of access to productive land have
remained an issue, the ODAs, particularly the World Bank, have renewed their policies to ‘modernise’
agriculture and stimulate the growth of a land market: promoting land subdivisions to enable the buying
and selling of land, and the creation of land banks (Bromley, 1989; World Bank, 1996, 1997). They argue
that to redistribute land from the rich landed people to the poor people, ‘better performing land markets to
make the land reform process work better, faster and cheaper’ are required (Van Den Brink, 2002).
The creation of Land Banks, to provide rural poor landholders with credit and a capacity to purchase land
and other ‘productive resources’ (inputs etc), is central to this approach (Ibid), as attempted in Brasil and
in South Africa since 1994. The latter has failed to meet the promise to redistribute 30% of white held
land (Moyo, 2000; Bernstein, 2002).The neoliberal approach to land reform has instead eliminated
subsidies to the agricultural sector, reduced tariff protections, limited funds for the expropriation of land
for redistribution to the landless and cut low interest credit to newly resettled rural farmers (Borrass,
2001). The expectation that the ‘private sector’ would provide ‘viable’ credit to peasants required that
legal protection of communal property and legal entitlement to land worked by peasants be removed to
allow for the sale of their land leading to increased ‘efficiency’ of production. These market assisted
approaches to redistributive land reform, pushed land market prices beyond the reach of the poor
beneficiaries of the land reform (Ibid). Removing subsidies on loans to avoid pushing up the price of land,
renders the market approach to land redistribution a self defeating exercise because the poor do not have
the money to pay for land (Veltmeyer 1997). Land titling and private sector bank credit makes the whole
10
process of land reform extremely slow as to be ineffective and unviable in situations of extreme land
scarcity (Ibid). Secondly the maintenance of legal and policy restrictions which militate against subdivision of farms into smaller units (Moyo, 1995; Van Den Brink, 2002) are the contradictory evidence of
large landholders’ influence on both the state and donor policy initiatives in the land market. Borras
(2001) argues that the market led agrarian reform model is neither a redistributive reform, nor a social
justice and pro-poor policy given that it takes time to redistribute extremely low levels of land.
The failures of both state-led and market led redistributive land reforms to address the land question have
inspired, the resurgence of varied social movements pressing for land reclamation. Social movements are
re-emerging globally as a means of rural mobilisation towards direct action to advance the economic
rights of the poor and as a potential force for endogenous alternative land reform (Veltmeyer 2003).
While local and national differences may be observed, these movements share common grievances arising
from unresolved land questions (agrarian questions more broadly), common location in the development
dialogue about the ‘rural poor’ and are subject to welfarist ‘rural development’ programmes, which have
not led to significant change of their material lives (Moyo, 2001). They share effective exclusion from a
‘civil’ society that conforms to the ‘proper’ procedure and content of ‘oppositional’ politics in accordance
with the liberal formula (Ibid).
The resurgent land struggles, through broad based social movements, must be understood both in terms of
their differences of form and in their values, compared to the proliferated civil society organisations
which pursue clinical land reforms under neoliberal structures and policies (Moyo, 2001). While the
‘civic’ organisations, are purportedly ‘independent’ or dissociated from the state, and international
donors, within a political framework of ‘multi-party democracy’, at a time when political parties can no
longer differ in their substantive politics, their values comply with established neoliberal tenets (Ibid).
Their respect for the ‘rule of law’, defined by entrenched private property, the ‘independent’ judiciary
(meaning bourgeois), and the ‘free’ press (meaning private), differ from those values of social movements
that are organised on a wider basis of class struggles (Moyo 2001).
Emerging social movements focused on land reform challenge existing land property laws and values and
confront the state to take cognisance of their own logic of social reproduction as opposed to market based
commercialisation of agriculture. In Africa debates on land tenure for instance while pushing for the
development of commercial production in customary tenures have promoted individualised systems of
tenure (private property). These are not however socially or politically sustainable as they are not a
necessary condition for the realization of surplus in general and among the peasantries in particular
11
(Mafeje, 1997). In this vein it has been argued that African modes of social organization are not
necessarily anti-capitalist but intrinsically anti-individualism (Mafeje, 1999). Hence, the predilection of
African land struggles to oppose land reforms that forebode the future alienation of land and the
marginalisation of the peasantries.
It is not a surprising therefore that, along with deepening poverty and proliferating rural violence over the
last two decades, there have emerged both organised and spontaneous rural movements, outside the ‘civil’
framework, seeking to transform inherited property regimes, and ‘elitist’ national land policy-making
processes (Moyo, 2002), which seek to co-opt rural civil society movements towards market based land
reforms of dubious redistributive value. Peasants’ resistance to land policy and their evasion of natural
resource regulations in Africa is a major way in which the state led land policy agenda has been
challenged, even if such resistance has not been articulated in a formally coherent land reform strategy or
academic discourse (Moyo, 1995). Although not systematically coordinated on a national level, it appears
that the common actions of peasant organisations when multiplied can initiate policy reversals (Moyo
2003). This social interaction between the state and rural poor and working represents a clear class
dimension of the land question in Africa, whereby rural peasantries sometimes in alliance with the urban
poor, mobilise against the land policies of the ruling classes (Yeros, 2000).
But conceptual confusion over the significance, role and organisation of peasantries tends to conflate their
importance in defining, if not leading, land struggles. In Africa the existence and nature of its peasantries
has been a major source of socio-anthropological debate (Mafeje, 1999; Rahmato, 1991; Moyo, 2002).
International debate on the peasantry reflects divergent views on the effectiveness and raison d étre of
peasant movements. As Veltmeyer (2003), argues at one end of the spectrum of this debate is the view
that takes the peasants as an entirely passive lot, the disempowered object of various kinds of state agency
including legislation, taxation, agricultural production regimes, systems of regulation and,
macroeconomic planning (see also Scott, 1985). At the other end of the spectrum is the perception of
peasants as an active and empowered force that continues to contest the terrain of struggle over land
(Petras, 1997a, 1997b). This difference in perception is reflected in the epistemological debate between
proponents of ‘structuralism’ as a mode of analysis (Marxism, etc) and those who reject all forms of
structuralism in favour of ‘grassroots post modernism’ (Esteva and Prakash, 1998) and ‘discourse
analysis’ (Veltmeyer 1997; Escobar, 1997).
12
According to Veltmeyer (2003), for structuralists generally, including Marxists, the peasantry is an
economic and political category that corresponds to a transitional organisational form, destined to
disappear into the dustbin of history, and whose presence on the world stage is effected now in other
disguises—as a rural proletariat, an urban lumpen proletariat trapped in a proliferating informal sector, or
as ‘wage-labour equivalents’ (see also Bryceson, Kay and Mooi, 2000; Kay, 2000). The dynamics of this
marginalisation process have been generally analysed in terms of land expropriation and land
concentration, rural out-migration and land invasions (“illegal settlements” or ‘’slums’’) on the periphery
of large urban centres, underground settlement systems on these lands, and the gradual incorporation of
the rural migrants into the structure and life of the city (Veltmeyer, 2003).
The end result of these processes, in theory, is a numerically reduced peasantry as an economic agent and
as a political force for change, a traditional social category decimated by the processes of modernisation,
urbanisation and capitalist development of urban-centred industry—and depeasantisation and
proletarianisation (Veltmeyer, 2003; Bartra, 1976; Cancian, 1987; Esteva, 1999; Kay, 2000). This
perspective on the role of the peasantry has tended to be argued with numerous permutations which are
closely associated with views about ‘the end of land reform’ (Veltmeyer, 2003).
Petras (1997a) argues that the peasantry cannot be understood purely in numerical terms, as a percentage
of the labour force or by the size of the peasant sector of the economy. Peasants remain a force, whose
weight and significance is out of proportion to their number. In the Latin American context, the peasantry
constitutes the most dynamic force for antisystemic change, found on the crest of a new wave of class
struggle—and of indigenous people—for, land reform, local autonomy, social justice, and democracy.
The role of peasants as producers and their relations to markets, the state and other classes are central
features which demonstrate how the local and global context confronting peasant families in rural Africa
is increasingly converging in both character and physical connection (Moyo 2003). This explains why and
how it is that relatively similar peasant organisational forms are emerging in various countries in Africa.
Common forms of political repression and economic exploitation emerging from two decades of
economic decline across the African continent have provoked similar local organizational responses
among peasants in the different countries. This peasant response has also evoked common rural welfarist
support systems, in the name of poverty reduction strategies, new wave rural development programmes
and empowerment projects, sponsored by governments, NGOs and donors (Moyo, 2002).
13
Implementation of the neoliberal capitalist development project has created an entirely new context for
the dynamics of the land struggle in different parts of the world. A number of analysts such as Bernstein
(2002) in this context have invoked the ‘death of land reform’, while some, according to Veltmeyer
(2003), such as Gwynne and Kay (1999) and Kay (2000), write of an ‘agrarian transformation’ process.
As to the nature and dynamics of this transformation, Alain de Janvry et. al. (1997) write of the transition
from ‘state-led to grassroots-led land reform’ while others highlight the transition to a market-assisted’
approach to land reform.
In this same context, Petras (1997a, 1997b) and Veltmeyer (1997) point to the emergence of a new wave
of peasant-based and led movements that push for demands that go beyond land reforms towards more
revolutionary or radical changes in government policy as well as the neoliberal model behind it and the
entire ‘system’ created by this model. In heuristic terms therefore, it is possible to identify the emergence
of three divergent paths towards land reform, each characterised by a distinct overall strategy and a mixed
bag of tactics: (i) state-led land reform (expropriation with compensation, land redistribution, rural
development); (ii) market-assisted land reform (land titling, land commoditisation and land banks); and
(iii) grassroots land reform processes including land occupations, negotiation and struggle (Veltmeyer,
2003). The extent to which these forms of land struggle are definitive of a peculiar land question in Africa
is discussed in the rest of this monograph.
2.2 The unique and diverse land questions of Africa
2.2.1 Is there a land question in Africa?
The perennial conceptual contest on the land issue is whether Africa has a land question, and if so, what is
the nature of its land question(s), given its diverse and complex history of agrarian development (Amin,
1972; Mafeje, 1999; Bernstein 2002). That Africa has an agrarian question, which can be characterised
mainly as an aborted agrarian transition reflected in low productivity and food insecurity, and one
founded on exploitative labour relations and unequal trade is generally agreed. The preoccupation of the
debate on Africa’s land question is whether or not there exists extensive unequal land distributions,
derived from land alienation founded in tributary social formations or colonial practice, which has led to
the classic problems of landlessness and captive agrarian labour. It has been argued that in sub-Saharan
Africa, where natives are in effective occupation of the land and, where land rights are generally
generated through customary tenure (up to 96% and a minimum of 80% in exceptional cases such as
Kenya, Cote d’Ivoire, and Malawi; see FAO, 1986), it can be said that there is no land question (see
14
Mamdani, 1986; Mafeje, 1985, 1991, l999). This assertion rests also on the assumption that land is
abundantly available for the ‘native ’to occupy.
The differential context of Africa’s agrarian formations is crucial to our understanding the nature of its
land questions. Amin (1972), provided a useful three-way categorisation of African economies in relation
to their incorporation into global capitalism, as well as in terms of their agrarian structures, when he
differentiated Africa of ‘settlerism’, the ‘economy de traite’ and Africa of the ‘concessions’. This
categorisation emphasized the fact that the former settler colonies of southern Africa, Kenya and parts of
north Africa had had the highest degree of land alienation, as opposed to the concession zones in parts of
central and west Africa where plantation enclaves of land enclosures were established, and in contrast to
the rest of Africa especially the west, which had limited land alienation and elaborate peasant economics.
The long term colonial historical trajectory of colonial land alienation and agrarian accumulation indeed
needs to be fully understood. As Amanor (1992) argues:
“In contrast with eastern or southern Africa, there was no significant expatriate plantation sector in West Africa, with
the exception of Côte d’Ivoire. Peasant production of export crops for the world market dominated. The dominant
European interests in the rural agrarian sector were mercantile trading companies who carried African produce to
Europe and traded European manufactures within West Africa. These relations of production and exchange developed
in the early nineteenth century, which is the period in which colonial protectorates were first established in West
African coastal enclaves. The mercantile interests lobbied the British government for a continuance of laissez-faire
policy and objected to expenditure by colonial government on creating infrastructure for large-scale commercial
production in West Africa.”
But, by focusing on the perspective which expects that a land question arises from the a priori historical
incidence of extensive if not one off land alienation, to the exclusion of the intricate ways in which land
concentration evolves elsewhere, under the logic of colonially contrived ‘customary’ land tenure regimes
and post-independence agrarian ‘developmentalism’, the current debates deny the various African land
questions, that have emerged over the century. In particular, they neglect the empirical trend of gradually
evolving land inequalities based upon land concentration and incipient land struggles, which our evidence
in chapter 3 to 6 shows. And, they relegate land, defined as one of the factors of agricultural production,
to the same level of other inputs such as labour, finance, equipment and so forth, conceiving land as a
residual problem because they assume that African peasantries can generally still subsist on available
land. They assume that the peasants have secure control and access to adequate land in a presumed land
abundant continental. We interrogate these assumptions here, beginning with the structural issues and
context.
15
The fact that African social formations and their adaptation since colonialism, predisposes the continent to
a unique land question in the global context is certain, albeit poorly defined in the literature. This logic
however does not in and of itself obviate the emergence of land questions beyond settler Africa. For,
when examined in the ‘long duree’, the African colonial and successor state, given its developmental
agenda tended to dominate the land reform policy process, scant attention to emerging land distribution
biases by placing greater emphasis on reform of land tenures and structures which regulate land access
and use, in ways that have promoted land concentration and marginalisation.
There are some key uniquely African social features which define its land questions and approaches to
land reform including why the dominant emphasis on land tenure reform has evolved. The African
experience with land reforms can be distinguished from those in Latin America and Asia because of the
peculiarly African mix of its land questions as well as the effects of the post-independence state’s
developmentalist character.
The first, primary difference which Mafeje (2003), emphasizes is the absence, at the advent of African
colonialisation, of widespread purely feudal political formations based on the specific social relations of
production in which land and labour processes are founded on serfdom or its variants under feudal or even
semi-feudal landlords (See also Patnaik, 1999) regarding these structures on India). Essentially, the
extraction of surplus value from serfs by landlords through ground rents using primitive forms of land
rental allotments and through the mandatory provision of different forms of ‘bonded’ or ‘unfree’ labour
services, sharecropping and other tributary exactions on the peasantry under feudalism, was uncommon in
Africa, and not as intense where it obtained. Instead, and again as Mafeje (2003) points out, most rural
African societies were structured around lineage based ‘communal’ structures of political authority and
social organisation, in which access to land was founded on recognized and universal usufruct rights
allocated to families (both pastoral and sedentary) of members of given lineage groupings. Such land
rights also included those eventually allocated to assimilated ‘slaves’, migrants and settlers, as Mandani
(2001) and others argue.
This means that African ‘households’ held land and mobilized their labour relations in production
processes, relatively autonomously of the ruling lineages and ‘chiefs’ mainly for their own consumption
needs and secondarily for social or ‘communal’ projects on a minor scale. Under these conditions,
production for trade, generally considered to have been long distant in nature, occurred on a small but
increasing scale since colonialism. Amin (1972) has argued that these African social formations had some
16
exploitative elements of tributary social relations of production. These can be adduced from the
contributions that households made, from small parts of the household product and labour, to the rulers’
and social projects (e.g. the king’s fields, granary reserves and so forth). But, the essential issue which
distinguishes the African land question from elsewhere is the absence of rural social relations of
production based on serfdom, such as land renting and bonded labour, in a context where monopoly over
land by a few landlords did not exist. Colonialism extended the extroversion of production and the
process of surplus value extraction through the control of markets and ‘extra- economic’ force, but left the
land and labour relations generically “free”. The exception to this was in settler Africa.
The second point of difference, is that under colonialism, ‘indirect rule’ modified the organisation of
peasant societies through contrived changes to the procedures of customary rule and of leadership and
directed peasant production towards generalised petty commodity production, mainly through the control
of finance, markets and infrastructures. While migrant labour processes were engineered almost
everywhere within limited geographic confines, in settler Africa it accompanied extensive and
institutionalized land expropriation which led to the proletarianisation of large segments of peasant
labour, generating large scale landlessness and land shortages, alongside semi-proletarianisation. But even
there, a substantial peasantry, with relatively autonomous control of reduced land sizes and of restricted
labour supplies was maintained, mainly in marginal lands under modified customary authority and tenure
systems, in localized variants of indirect rule, which became essentially sub-national ethno-regional
enclaves (Bantustans and ‘reserves’). Under indirect rule therefore, customary systems of authority with
regard to land tenures were thus retained, but adapted to suit the frequent needs of the state to excise some
lands and allocate it to specific production schemes or classes, and these allowed lineage leaders larger
land endowments.
Thirdly, while the dichotomy which defines the non-settler and settler African land questions, based on
large scale historical land alienations, remains, this has increasingly become less acute in some regions of
given countries, because, as we will demonstrate later, of generalized but locationally narrow forms of
land concentration. This has emerged from ‘below’ and ‘above’, through internal social differentiation
and external excision of lands allocated to ‘elites’ using state land administration structures and emerging
land markets. This emphasizes the fact that the African neo-colonial state, as we argue in chapter3.0, has
been ‘activist’ in promoting agrarian capitalist change in a manner which has supported land
concentration among capitalist farmers and enabled the dominant classes to marginalize peasants and
workers from their land rights and livelihood.
17
On a continental scale, these processes nonetheless suggest that neither large scale land alienation
processes or landlessness nor total proletarianisation or bonded forms of rural labour have resulted. They
point to a diffuse but significant structure of land concentration among agrarian capitalists on the
continent in general. When considered alongside the dominance of white settler agrarian capitalism in
southern Africa and small remnants of ‘landlordism’ in some parts of North Africa, land concentration
and marginalization processes have been growing to the point of being socially and potentially significant.
The prevalence of semi-proletarianisation (worker-peasants) alongside the retention of large peasantries,
or of small cultivators as Mafeje (1997) calls them, means that in general African rural societies retain
households with ‘independent’ landholdings, albeit at a diminishing scale and on increasingly
marginalized lands. But critically, their production and land use activities, and relations of production, are
restricted by the quality and scale of land available, and by state agrarian policies and markets which
extract significant surplus value from them. African, land reforms ought to redress these land inequities
and direct land use towards internally beneficial and articulated ‘development’ for the improved
livelihoods of the majority.
A fourth factor which distinguishes the African land questions, but which is particularly of relevance to
settler Africa, is the legacy of settler colonial land and livestock expropriations which accompanied
colonial conquest, and the nature and extent of reparations which are demanded, based on ‘living
memory’ and as an element of resolving the ‘national’ question. This nationalist land question of
sovereign right and of redressing racial and ethnic imbalances in property and economic relations has
tended to be under-estimated and misconceptualised. This national question is mirrored in the indigenous
land struggles everywhere today. Land reform programmes in this situation where compensation of
current large land holders is considered almost normative, are tied into expectations that former colonial
masters should pay the ‘victims’ of current land reform expropriations, if not also the victims of colonial
expropriation, who have suffered long term loss (see also Mamdani 2001). Demands for colonial land
reparations have been made in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Namibia, as well as historically on a smaller scale
in Botswana and Swaziland, as has been the case in other nations with a history of settler colonial land
expropriations, such as Australia, Canada and the United States of America. In Latin America the spectre
of similar demands is resurgent.
18
While some countries with historic land problems including various Latin American countries, Japan,
Taiwan and so forth, had received financial support for their land reform from former colonial or imperial
(USA) powers, especially in the context of cold war political hegemonic efforts, reparations for colonial
land losses in Africa have not been adequately addressed. African governments, the Zimbabwe
government in particular, allege that racism and protection by international donors of their land owning
‘kith and kin’ and their capital in Africa is at the centre of the land reform dilemma and of the current
political controversy. Current SAPs and poverty reduction strategies which define lending and
development assistance are conditioned on economic and governance models which undermine national
capacities to redress these grievances according to the ‘rule of law’.. This feature emphasises the colonial
and external dimension of Africa’s land reform processes, and the political controversy of market driven
land reform strategies in the context of neoliberal ‘globalisation’.
Therefore, Africa has land questions whose social significance cannot be overstated. Land scarcity, denial
of access to natural resources by large landholders and the state, through laws that exclude many, as well
as land privatization, all contribute to human distress, poverty, landlessness, homelessness and so forth in
Africa. In some situations, it is the scarcity of arable land that is at stake (e.g. North Africa), whilst in
others (West Africa) it is the problem of land administration and decision-making conflicts between the
state and local communities and various other interest groups (men, women, urbanites, civil servants,
youths and poor households) which is problematic (Amanor, 2003). In former settler colonies it is the
challenge of land redistribution and related land struggles, which are dominant.
Even where most peasants are in effective occupation of the land and land rights are generally generated
through customary tenure, because land is held under the custodianship of the President, land questions of
inequitable access and exclusion have emerged. This is because African peasant societies face pervasive
land tenure security problems arising from the distortions of land tenure systems, as well as from the
effect of agrarian class differentiation in the context of growing land concentration in customary tenure
regimes or so called ‘communal areas’.
It is not surprising that recently renewed attempts to promote comprehensive land policies in Africa have
become schizophrenic in their motive and design over issues of redistribution and the forms of land tenure
to promote. Indeed salient but ubiquitous private enclosure and outright expropriation of land through the
market is being resisted by peasant organisations in the African continent, as the state, traditional leaders
and private local elites promote land alienation processes at the expense of the rural poor. Migrant
19
farmers' demands for land and attempts to exclude them or to initiate rules that curtail their rights are
becoming common demands everywhere among some peasant organisations. Struggles for or against land
property rights being individuated through title deeds and, struggles against the introduction of land
rentals or levies, and struggles against the exclusion of peasants from access to natural resources through
the leasing of state forest and nature reserves are commonplace throughout the continent. This suggests
that the intensity of demand for just land reform is growing.
New social organisations rather than only traditional land structures are emerging within some peasant
associations (Abutudu, 2002; Moyo, 2003; Khalid, 2003) to defend members against varied land
problems which arise from the practices of the state, traditional authorities and the emerging agrarian
bourgeoisie. State directed land management structures are often challenged because they marginalize
local peasants through increasingly discordant land administration systems introduced through
community projects and land conservation, and because they now involve local and “foreign” migrants
(Moyo and Romdhane, 2002).
This perspective argues that a land question has been emerging distinctively throughout post-colonial
Africa because of the historical evolution of the contests and struggles over land access, use and systems
of tenure, founded upon class, gender, race, ethnicity, class and, regional inequities, discrimination and
regulation. As argued elsewhere, once the land inequities emerge, they confound the actually existing but
varied African agrarian question politically, through complex class struggles focused on the control of
land, agrarian markets and related public resources (Moyo, 1995, 2000). No doubt the greatest hurdle to
agrarian reform, while particularly focused on extensive land redistribution in the former settler colonies,
is the growing lack of access to productive lands among the expanding peasantries in the face of
increasing monopolies over underutilised land which is hoarded for speculative purposes. The social
context in which rather than the absolute numerical scale at which African peasants and workers are
becoming landless and homeless defines the political significance of Africa’s land questions.
2.2.2 Elements of Africa’s agrarian question
But it is critical to understand why some African scholars such as Mafeje (1999) argue that it is only in
Southern Africa, and not in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, where there is both a land and an agrarian
question. Mafeje (1997) notes that the low agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa outside of
southern Africa is not accounted for by lack of access to land but rather by the agrarian question entailing
the value of the land – production techniques, production relations and the social institutions that sustain
them. He also stresses that white racist domination in southern Africa’s settler societies has produced an
20
un-African situation, and describes these structure as corresponding to the Latin American and Asian
situations. Mafeje (1999) further argues that:
“Although land reform and agrarian reform have come to be treated as coterminous as a result of the LatinAmerican and Asian experience, it is apparent that this does not apply to sub-Saharan Africa, outside the
Southern African settler societies. It is important to note that it does not involve change only in production
techniques, as is often assumed, but also in production relations and the social institutions that sustain them.”
Yet it is constructive to consider that in much of Africa, where there is a growing large scale indigenous
agrarian capitalist farming, the concentration of public resource allocations for agricultural technological
progress as well as for market protection has been focused on this category, particularly the export
farmers. This is at the expense of broad based transformations of farming techniques and institutions,
including the restructuring of production relations and public institutions. The inequitable distribution of
land between white settlers and the natives in southern Africa for example, was itself the basis for the
structuring of unequal state intervention in support of the agrarian capitalist farmer against the peasantries.
This system became socially, politically and economically unsustainable because of the perceived and
really differentiated effort, which addressed the productivity problem which underlie the agrarian question
in a discriminatory manner, along a combined racial and class structure of promoting large scale white
agricultural capitalist farmers.
It is nevertheless correct to say that the agrarian productivity question is most acute in the entire subSaharan Africa, except for South Africa, where agriculture has suffered a steep output decline since 1979
and that as yet there are no signs of an impending agrarian revolution (Mafeje 2003; Mkandawire, 2003).
In sub-Saharan Africa the constraints are largely from technological innovation and extant modes of
organisation, especially the lineage mode of organisation and gender relations. In southern Africa the
problem in the first instance is institutionalised inequity between large-scale white farmers and smallscale black producers cum migrant workers. This primary contradiction tends to obscure the agrarian
contradictions found elsewhere within African rural communities, where there is an incipience of
institutionalised rural inequity based upon unequal control of land and its use, and state interventions.
The agrarian question has to be understood in the context of unequal agrarian relations based on unequal
patterns of land ownership as the key means of production, especially where production technologies are
rudimentary. The fact that unequal agrarian investments are biased towards large farms, which are
increasingly founded on private property, against small farms suggests the institutionalisation of the
pretence that land ownership in the form of private property is the only basis upon which commercial
farming and technological change are feasible, because credit is only collaterable on such property. This
21
merely justifies the concentration of resources in a few large farmers in most of sub-Saharan Africa,
leaving peasant techniques ‘backward’.
Thus one critical set of agrarian issues relates to the question of land use efficiency, a social process
which is contested throughout the epoch of capitalism, because it is mixed up with the question of scale in
farming, in relation to the social organization of production and its labour processes, as well as the
direction of technical change and productivity (Bernstein, 2002). The growing demand by elite groups for
large scale farms, on grounds that their size is more conducive to efficient land utilisation is a primary
problem with African land policy formulation. This is because it justifies the land concentration process,
when the economic rationality of this orientation for productivity, economies of scale and income
distribution and hence domestic markets growth is questionable. If the key objective of land reform policy
is to establish a more efficient and rational structure of farming and, of land and natural resources
utilisation, then land policies would not defend the interest of minority classes at the expense of small
scale peasant operations, when the empirical evidence shows that small scale farming does allow for
optimal land utilisation, increased productivity, as well as employment growth and broadened income
distribution.
Furthermore empirical evidence seems to suggest that growing struggles over unequal access to land are
not only a key source of pressure for land reforms, but that these struggles are an expression of the wider
problematique of exploitative and unequal agrarian relations. Thus, the selective condition of low
agricultural productivity and accumulation in the agrarian sector are a particular grievance within the
wider agrarian questions, and this arises from the shape of Africa’s emergent land question. Mafeje
(1999) also argues that the land question is a national question, and while it can be dealt with from a
nationalist perspective it is not so easy to rationalize the labour and capital aspects, which are relatively
fluid and integrated across borders. He argues that the agrarian question, with its issues of a mobile
proletariat and capital needs to be understood within the context of the history of the sub-regions. This is
correct, as experiences from West Africa also show.
The land question in West Africa involved a complex attempt by colonial powers to control nationalism
and indigenous labour resources toward export production through a peculiar approach to land policy and
customary land tenure. According to Amanor (1992) citing Morel (1902), land in West Africa, as the
capital of the people and chiefs as the trustees for the communities, was preserved through customary law
to promote an African nationalism based upon tribal federations.
22
The land question under colonialism became tied up with the labour question given the colonial desire to
abolish domestic slavery, while maintaining adequate labour supplies to create a modern monetary
economy, public works and private enterprise (Amanor, 2003). Forced labour and taxation were
implemented through chiefs from labour reserves for the export cash cropping areas and the colonial
mining enclaves (Ibid), thus generating various land questions associated with migrant labour and migrant
farmers rights of access within customary tenure regimes. Extensive land conflicts emerged without the a
priori existence of extensive land expropriation.
The land question outside of settler Africa was complicated by the specific colonial land policy. “…
restricting access to land or appropriating land through the creation of reserves was deliberately used as a
way of limiting the livelihood and income that people could gain from the land and forcing them to seek
wage labour or migrate in search of wage labour to supplement the incomes they gained from the land …”
(Amanor, 2003). By restricting a land market and individual property rights and transactions in land, the
access of migrants and runaway slaves was also limited.
But while transnational labour movements pose critical contradictions for the agrarian question in the
national context, such migrations in the African context have posed specific land rights problems at the
national level. These are compounded by other internal land and agrarian problems of social exclusion.
For, the national question of land emerges not only from processes of exclusion from access to land, but
from the nationally differentiated agrarian capital accumulation and selective state support processes,
which are embedded in and legitimised through land concentration for ‘commercial’ farming.
Moreover, access to adequate land is fundamental in Africa for the survival of the majority of households
in the absence of alternative productive industry and infrastructures for employment in the services sector.
Land provides multiple uses, consumption inputs and utilities to most peasant and urban households, and
in this respect, access to land is the main source of livelihoods. Thus lack of investment towards the
sustainable productivity of peasant lands in a context of changing land uses and demand for land itself
distorts organic peasant land use systems as much as do land policies which regulate or incentivise land
use towards export oriented production rather than meeting domestic food and industrial requirements.
This suggests that both the land and agrarian questions are critical elements of the national and
development questions in Africa today.
23
But, while the lack of productivity growth in Africa, which continues to lag behind Asia and Latin
America, is underpinned by the agrarian technological backwardness, and inappropriate land and agrarian
policy in generally, it is also tied into the diminishing surpluses for investment into Africa as a result of
excessive agricultural export orientation. This arises from the perennial declining terms of agricultural
commodity trade and the extractive role of monopoly capital and debt, as shaped by its SAP agendas. This
suggests that inappropriate economic and land use policies as well negative external integration are as
critical factors in explaining Africa’s looming ‘agrarian crisis’. Thus both ‘internalistic’ perspectives of
peasant technological constraints and their diminished access to land per se and externalist perspectives
are critical to Africa’s agrarian “crisis”. Thus in conceptualising Africa’s land and agrarian question both
should be considered, including policies which over-regulate rural land markets and land uses through
inappropriate state intervention and macro-economic management and externally determined unequal
trade relations.
Much scholarship on Africa tends to consider national internal agrarian policy deficiencies to be the key
cause of Africa’s agricultural and rural problems. Yet, the most striking result of the African agricultural
performance over the last three decades is the growing rural income distribution inequalities and broader
social differentiation (Ghai and Radwan, 1983) consequent upon the expansion of rural markets and of
negative global economic integration. In historical perspective, these interpretations of the causes of the
agrarian crisis reflect poorly on the African nationalist agenda, because it has delivered neither industrial
development nor stability and because it has generated greater social conflict over land and natural
resources and agrarian resources.
2.2.3 An overview of African land struggles
Given the social significance of land to the lives of most of the rural and classes, its control is an
important source of political power and a terrain for political contest between different social classes or
groupings of people: landlords, peasants, bureaucrats, men and women, ethnic groups, racial groups and
so many other social categories. The importance of land for the social reproduction of mainly peasant
households, through subsistence from land and natural resources and related income generation, has both
inter-generational and intra-generational implications.
Access to adequate land and natural resources contained therein while complemented by migration and
remittances and off- farm activity and incomes is increasingly dominated by exchange incomes derived
from agricultural production activities among most peasant households. Diminishing access to land in
terms of land alienation, demographic pressures and failure of the technological base to improve
24
productivity of the land and natural resources elicit peasant strategies to expand their access to new land
and natural resources in competition with coterminous peasant communities, emerging agrarian capitalists
and migrants. Women are the least resourced in these struggles. Increasingly contemporary structures of
political and economic power relations in much of Africa are significantly influenced by attempts to hoard
land and popular struggles to restore or gain land rights. The land expropriations which occurred at a large
scale mainly during the colonial era and in other countries on a localised smaller scale in Africa underlie
emerging contradictory property relations and struggles.
The politics over land reform in some parts of Africa suggests the resurgence of long standing liberation
style politics, based on anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and the resistance of minority dominance, in
societies polarised on racial, ethno-regional and ideological lines. Emerging popular but sporadic and
scattered land occupations for instance conjure the idea of seizing power and local autonomy. Notions of
land ‘seizures’ or ‘grabs’ have however, replaced the immediate post-colonial discourses of ‘land
nationalisation’ in national discourses now politically confounded by the competing interests of both
national elites and the marginalised. Land occupations and struggles threaten property rights and underlie
wider political conflicts, as we discuss in chapter 6.0.
These processes emphasize the importance of struggles within and resistance to the general policies and
practices of the African states especially over land management (see chapter 5.0). To the peasantry, land
reform is central to agrarian reform, because agrarian reform is predicated upon agrarian modernisation
projects whose delivery is uncertain and inadequate and externally driven mostly by state led investment
in agricultural services and infrastructure targeting mainly larger capitalist farmers (Moyo, 1995). Such
investments while required for African peasantry to break their technological and productivity capacities,
are secondary to rural household struggles which focus on retaining autonomous control over productive
land, as the minimum household reproduction need.
Resolving both the land and agrarian questions is a pressing contradiction facing the African states which
remain underdeveloped, but dominated by neo-liberal and economic structures. The re-emergence of land
reform on the development aid agenda since the mid-1990s marks the recognition that the ‘agricultural
crisis’ in Africa reflects contradictions in the dialectic relationship between peasants, government and,
global markets and development institutions. This process has resulted from the failure of structural
adjustments to live up to their rural development promises. Not surprisingly the land question has recently
25
resurfaced as a pre-occupation of the poverty reduction agenda of the World Bank and various bi-lateral
aid agencies (Moyo, 2002).
3.0 African land Questions: Trends and Tendencies
3.1 The land distribution question: trends and sources
The nature of access to, control and ownership of land in Africa is differentiated and tends towards
unequal patterns of land concentration, exclusion from land for basic livelihood requirements or for
primary accumulation, and marginalisation in terms of territorial space and local autonomy, as well as in
terms of national and local citizenship rights embedded in access to land, especially for women labour
migrants, new settlers and ethnic minorities. The basic structures of landholding inequalities are found
along race, class ethnic, regional, national origin and gender based cleavages of discrimination in all the
allocation of land rights. These gender inequalities cut across the class, ethnic and regional dimensions of
exclusion, and include repressive practices, which are generic to the wider social and power structures of
patriarchy, as discussed further in section 4.0.
Patterns of inequality in access to and control of land vary across countries, and within sub-regions of
countries in Africa. These range from absolute or widespread national inequality and dualistic spatial land
tenure and land access regimes, to regionally concentrated patterns of land inequalities; to micro-level
class and power based differentiations in access to and control of land. These landholding differentiation
tendencies of concentration and marginalisation vary according to specific historical, and political
circumstances, economic development patterns and, the emerging social and class structures, including
the associated marginalisation and accumulation trajectories which vary along race, class, gender, ethnic
and geographic lines. Current political and economic power relations in Africa tend to be heavily
structured by the nature of land distribution and, struggles over land and natural resources. Increasingly
the conflicts, which arise from these differential land rights, have contributed to the resurgence of land
movements, which struggle to regain access to land and new land reform policy initiatives, as we discuss
in chapter 5.0 and 6.0 respectively.
Unequal land distribution takes the extreme form of full-scale bi-modal land ownership regimes where
minorities controlled between 30 and 80 % of national lands, as found in Southern Africa. A lower degree
of inequity in landholdings occurs based upon socially differentiated rural societies in which the
indigenous elite own relatively large pieces of land alongside a land short peasantry. In between, are those
countries with a few scattered agrarian enclaves based upon plantation sub-sectors of the European
26
merchant capitalists, which co-exist with peasantries in a bimodal agrarian context skewed in favour of
peasantries. In addition to this gradient of unequal land ownership based upon private control of freehold
and leasehold lands are the large tracts of land held and used by the state for concessioning to private and
state institutions to exploit native forests and wildlife in particular. These state held lands range between
5% and 40% of total national land area of the various countries.
The common feature of this distributional inequity is the exploitative relation between labour and the
large landowners, whereby the peasantries and migrants provide labour to landowners, who exclude them
from accessing the natural resources for their own livelihood. Furthermore the salient feature of this land
distributional problem, expressed in different degrees and forms across the continent, is the active class
and social struggles over control of land and natural resources between both elites and associated
international capital and various land hungry peasants and poor workers.
The legacy of the colonial land policies in Africa is a major framework through which unequal
landholdings undermine sustainable livelihoods at the individual country level. The land distribution
problem is diverse based upon varied historical experiences and different resource endowments. The West
African region for instance is ecologically and economically diverse with a series of climatic and
vegetation belts running from north to south, from moist forests in the south to arid lands in the north, and
thus offers varied contexts for the land distribution problem. The coastal belts, rich in natural resources
and integrated into the world economy as producers of primary export staples and timber, have for long
been the focus of land struggles. The forest area is also rich in mineral wealth, experienced labour
migration from the Sahelian areas since colonial and pre-colonial times, (Manchuelle, 1997), leading the
Sahelian regions to be were created into labour reserves (Amanor, 2003).
In West Africa both land and labour policies led to higher population densities in the coastal areas than in
the interior (Amanor, 2003). In Côte d’Ivoire one third of the population originates from Burkina Faso or
Mali. In Ghana the cocoa economy was built with migrant labour mostly from Burkina Faso and Niger.
The groundnut industry of the Gambia was opened up by migrations of the Soninke people from Senegal
and Mali (Ibid). There have also been substantial migrations from those countries, which contain both
forest and savannah from the savannah portions into the forest areas, such as in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire
(Ibid). Within the Sahelian areas pastoralism is also an important economic activity involving
transhumant migrations of people with their cattle between wet season pastures situated in northern arid
zones and dry season pastures in the southern areas (Amanor, 2003).
27
While some former slave labour migrated to the West African towns, the remaining descendants of slaves
were restricted from access to farmland, although many of them attempted to purchase the plots they
cultivated, with some failing to do so (Ibid). This land access and distribution problem led to the
emergence of dependent types of share cropping relations in which former slave, migrants and the land
short worked on the lands of their former masters and who then provided them with a portion of the
surplus in kind (Amanor, 2003). This peculiar form of Africa’s land question has expanded into a
complex process of land markets and land tenure relations which raise land problems common to those
found in the regions of extensive land expropriation. The evidence of land scarcity land fragmentation and
near landlessness abounds in non-settler African countries. The differentiation of landholding structures
although based upon smaller average land sizes has become problematic and extreme in countries such as
Rwanda.
Land expropriation on a large scale occurred mainly during the colonial era in some African countries,
especially South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique, Kenya, Angola, Algeria and to a lesser extent
in Swaziland, Botswana and Zambia, although state appropriation of such lands after independence was
significant in the latter countries, including the use of nationalisation in Tanzania and Zambia. Semifeudal land concentration is found in Morocco, Ethiopia and in a variant form in countries such as Uganda
with varied attempts made at redistributive reforms. Localised and recent land expropriations on a smaller
scale underlie the contradictory property relations and struggles for instance in Nigeria, Sudan, Botswana,
Malawi and in the plantations of most of the central African countries, a process which is emerging
almost everywhere in Africa.
Land distributional conflicts affecting some ethnic groups, especially minority ‘indigenous’ groups are
common in some countries, especially where post-independence land expropriations by the state have
facilitated or led to the reallocation of land to local elites and foreign capital. In Botswana, the San
(Bushmen) land has been expropriated by large diamond mining and wildlife tourism concerns with
piece-meal compensation to them. The Herero, in Namibia, and the Maasai in Tanzania and Kenya, have
suffered similar fates as land expropriated from them in colonial times has been continued after
independence, with the land being transferred to the majority tribes, resulting in the original claimants
diminished land rights.
28
3.1.1 Settler colonial land expropriation and racial land inequalities
Settler land expropriation varied in African countries, but was most extensive in southern Africa Kenya
and north Africa. On the one hand, countries such as Angola, Lesotho, Swaziland and Zambia had lower
proportions of land expropriated. But in terms of the size of the settler population Namibia, seems to have
had the largest white settler population mainly composed of the Afrikaners and Germans, which by 1960
amounted to 19%. The largest scale of white settler land expropriation occurred in South Africa, whose
87% of the land was allocated to the Afrikaners and English settlers beginning in the 18th century.
Although at independence the white settler populations have tended to decrease the proportion of land
possessed by white minorities has tended not to decrease proportionately, while there has been a gradual
increase in foreign landholdings in countries such as Mozambique, Zambia and Malawi, in the context of
renewed interest by private international capital in tourism based on the control of natural resources
(Moyo, 2003).
Countries such as South Africa and Namibia remain confronted with excessively unequal land holdings
with freehold titled land in the hands of a few white commercial farmers. In South Africa where 55,000
white farmers, who make up only 5% of the white population, still own almost 85% (85,5 million) of the
land. Yet only 20,000 white commercial farmers produce 80% of the gross agricultural product, and the
remaining 35,000 and about 2,000 small-scale black farmers, produce 15%, of output. 500,000 families
living in the former homelands produce an estimated 5%. At least 12 million blacks inhabit 17.1 million
hectares of land and no more than 15 % (or 2.6 million hectares) of this land is potentially arable
(Wildschut and Hulbert, 1998). Thus whites own 6 times more land in terms of the quantity of land
available and its quality (Ibid).
The rural land question in South Africa is often under-estimated by the supposition that since agriculture
as a key land user is not dominant in the economy, demand for rural land is not critical. Agriculture
contributes only 3% of South Africa's GDP, 7% of exports and 10% of national employment (ESS, 2002).
Whereas most of the agricultural employees are foreign migrant workers from Zimbabwe, Mozambique,
Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho, agrarian labour is also considered an insignificant source of rural
agricultural land demand. The problems of insecure rural worker tenancy and homelessness tend to be
considered minor problems of limited political significance. However, in 1997, a national rural survey
showed that approximately 1.7 million households had access to arable land, while 0.7 million households
did not. Of the 1.7 million households, 94% had access to 5 hectares or less, and 50% had access to 1
hectare or less (SSA, 1999) which is estimated to be unsustainable for livelihoods. Yet, the average white
29
large farmland size was increased from 722 hectares in 1950 to 1,193 ha in 1978 (Weiner and Levin,
1994). The structural basis of this land dispossession of the black population in South Africa was
moreover intended to reduce competition for white farmers and to create a pool of cheap labour for the
agricultural and mining sectors and, later industry. Patterns of land ownership and control structured the
social mechanism of control over black workers and the population for the needs of the capitalist
economy.
Even the so called rural small scale farmers are differentiated in access to land, inputs and finance, with
about 30% of them have more than double the incomes of the rest, and some hire partial/limited labour,
while about 0.7 million households (NLC, Aliber and Mokoena, 2003) are truly landless and have little
investment resources besides family labour. It is estimated that about 200,000 labour tenants and 1 million
farm workers, and approximately 7-8 million Africans in the reserves, and that not all Africans in the
latter beneficiaries group would be interested in land reform (Deininger, 1998). This differentiation of the
peasantry in itself indicates unrealised potentials for augmenting the livelihoods of currently existing
formal peasantries, especially the scope of need for land, if not real demand for land reform.
The scale of demand for farming land in South Africa in terms of people seeking full or part time farming
and peri-urban residential land is growing. Considering that 40.9% most of them require land for their full
or part time (semi-proletarianised) agricultural livelihood activities. It can be estimated that at least 19
million rural people are potentially or actually short of or in need of agricultural land, while seven million
poor and black urban people who are landless (Eveleth and Mngxitama, mimeo). Indeed in a dynamic
framework such demand for land through peasant or semi-peasant livelihoods could more than double
over the next 15 years, given the slow pace of formal employment growth.
Today, Namibia still has the highest number of white settlers at about 8% of the total population.
Commercial land under freehold title comprises approximately 6,300 farms belonging to 4,128 mostly
white farmers measuring about 36.2 million hectares. The freehold land covers 44% of available land and
70% of the most productive agricultural land covering 36 million hectares. Only 2.2 million hectares of
the commercial farmland belong to black farmers. By contrast, communal lands comprise 138,000
households with an area of 33.5 million hectares, which is only 41% of the land available.
In Zimbabwe, before the fast track land reform programme, most of the freehold lands were in the hands
of 4500 whites (comprising 0.03% of the population) and located in the most fertile parts of the country,
30
with the most favourable climatic conditions and water resources. White farmers controlled 31% of the
country’s freehold land or about 42% of the agricultural land, while 1.2 million black families subsisted
on 41% of the country’s area of 39 million hectares. This has since been reversed by the Fast Track Land
Reform Programme, where only 1,300 white farmers remain, and they control less than 10% (?) of the
land. (Moyo and Sukume, 2004)
These land distributional complexities have far reaching effects on the existing structure and patterns of
conflictual race relations. Land inequalities in southern Africa are the basis of the uniquely
gerrymandered distribution of socio-demographic features, including population, wealth, income, and
employment patterns, which define economic control and management. Even the structures of political
party formations and social forces of civil society are based upon social relations, which are heavily
polarized by these unequal land property relations. This cleavage defines the social basis for land
struggles and land policy making.
Even in various other non-settler African countries, small foreign immigrant populations such as the
Lebanese in west Africa, and Asians in East Africa have become associated with large freehold and
leasehold landholdings. Racially based differentiation of economic power and wealth associated with
some degree of land control has become a source of land conflicts. For example, in 1969 the Asian
population in Uganda of about 70,000 (officially considered foreigners despite the fact that more than
50% of them had been born in Uganda) had gained control of the retail and wholesale trade, cotton
ginning, coffee and sugar processing, and other segments of commerce. President Amin deported most
Asians in 1972 and only a few returned to Uganda in the 1980s to claim compensation for their
expropriated land, buildings, factories, and estates. In 1989 the Asian population in Uganda was estimated
at only about 10,000 (Otunnu and Laloyo). In Malawi, during the last three years long-term Asian
residents have increasingly been identified as ‘foreign’ landowners, largely on racial and dual citizenship
grounds, given the land policy reforms intended to prohibit foreign land ownership. The implications of
this pattern of foreign land ownership are discussed further in section 3.1.5, after we discussed the more
generalised emergence of scattered land concentrations derived from class rather than white settler
dynamics.
31
3.1.2 Class based land inequalities: land concentration from ‘above’ and ‘below’
3.1.2.1 Growing land scarcities, declining land sizes and poverty
The perception that Africa, outside former settler territories, does not have a land question in terms of a
distributional problem because of the abundance of land (see Mafeje 2003) is not born out by empirical
reality. For, although most African countries tend to be large in area with relatively low gross per capita
population densities, much of the land is arid and the soils are not arable in large parts of the continent,
and water resources for farming are not adequately distributed or harnessed for intensive farming. More
than half of the idle arable land in the world is in Africa, yet in some countries population densities are
near their maximum, given the present agricultural technology and soil fertility management patterns.
Much of the arable land in Africa is not farmed because of natural constraints, such as tsetse flies, which
virtually preclude the use of approximately one-third of the continent, including some of the best watered
and most fertile land (UNEP), while land is under-utilised by large scale landholders. Thus current
patterns of per capita access to arable land exhibit growing land scarcities and landlessness alongside
under-utilised lands, and increasing distributional inequities.
Although a variety of livelihood strategies are pursued by smallholders in Africa, the predominant activity
is smallholder ‘semi-subsistence’ farming, Most households rely on cash and subsistence incomes from a
number of sources that include irrigated and rainfed cultivation, livestock production, tree production, and
other miscellaneous activities like honey production. Households also depend on a variety of non-farm
livelihoods, such as woodland activities, fisheries, trading, value adding processing, wage incomes, and
remittances. The agricultural activities are affected by unfavourable climatic conditions, poor markets and
infrastructure services and unfavourable physical conditions (poor soils, land degradation because of
cultivation on sloping land, deforestation). Thus access to a diminishing land resource base and insecure
land tenure has most profound effects on the livelihoods of the majority, defining the peculiarly African
character of the land question under dryland farming conditions using backward technologies.
Per capita to arable land ownership per household has been declining due to the increase in population in
the continent, including where white and black large-scale farmers own most of the best arable land in
farms that are oversized. Indeed, poverty tends to be concentrated in households with farm sizes under
1ha and especially under 0.5ha. In Zimbabwe for example the average large farm was 2,000 hectares
depending on natural potential, in the communal areas the average farm size is below 3 hectares of mainly
savannah lands (Wildschut and Hulbert, 1998). In Malawi 40% of the smallholders cultivate less than
0.5ha, with an average farm size of 0.28ha (IFAD, 1999).
32
North Africa productive land is very scarce whilst water availability is critical, since Egypt, Libya,
Algeria and Morocco lie in exclusively arid areas (see table 3-1). Smallholder farming dominates
agricultural production, hence the focus of land policies in there on optimal land-use, minimisation of
land degradation and stemming urbanisation rates.
Table 3-1:
Country
Arable Land in North Africa
Arable land
Million ha
Libya
02.1
Tunisia
04.9
Algeria
7.6
Morocco
9.6
Source: ILO, 1996; FAO, 1998
As % of total
land area
1.2
31.6
3.2
21.5
Irrigated as % of
cultivated Area
22.2
7.8
7.9
13.1
% of Agricultural
population to total
population
15
38
44
48
Land per person
2.72
1.40
0.59
0.74
African poverty trends are strikingly tied to land access and tenure insecurity is strikingly clear in Africa,
given that more than 45% of sub-Saharan Africa’s population now lives in poverty (Jayne et al. 2002).
Although at least fifteen African countries have developed strategic plans for ‘poverty reduction’, most of
these plans pay scant attention to land access and distribution in rural poverty reduction. Yet household
survey data from Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Mozambique and Zambia shows that, in countries where 7080% of the rural population derives the bulk of its income from agriculture, poverty reduction typically
depends on agricultural productivity growth, and that growth alone is not sufficient for poverty reduction
since the initial distribution of assets such as land, affects the poverty-reducing effects of the growth.
In countries with ‘bad’ distribution of assets, economic growth was skewed towards wealthier households,
causing the gap between the rich and poor to widen, reinforcing the idea that, where access to land is
highly concentrated and where a sizeable part of the rural population lacks sufficient land to earn a
livelihood, then the problem of persistent poverty obtains.
Jayne et al. (2002) indicate that the ratio of land under crop cultivation to agricultural population (a rough
proxy for farm size per capita) has been shrinking gradually but consistently in Africa. The relatively
densely populated countries, like Kenya and Ethiopia, have seen this ratio cut in half over the past 40
years. Even in countries widely considered to be land abundant, such as Zambia and Mozambique, the
data also show a clear trend of declining farm sizes. This trend suggests that increasingly farming alone
33
will not sustain the livelihoods of land-constrained households without substantial shifts in labour from
agriculture to non-farm sectors.
There are critical disparities in access to land at the local household level, with evidence suggesting that
the highest per capita land household quartile controls between eight and 20 times more land than
households in the lowest quartile (table 3-2). In Kenya, mean land access for the top and bottom quartiles
are 1.10 and 0.08 hectares per capita respectively, including rented land, which is limited in most of the
countries In these countries, the bottom 25% of small-scale farm households is approaching landlessness,
controlling less than 0.03 hectares per capita. Thus there is positive association between household per
capita land holdings and per capita income (Ibid).
Table 3-2:
Country
Smallholder Land Distribution in Selected African Countries
Sample
size
Ave. land
access per
HH (ha)
Kenya
1 416
2.65
Ethiopia
2 658
1.17
Rwanda (1984) 2 018
1.2
Rwanda (1990) 1 181
0.94
Rwanda (2000) 1 584
0.71
Malawi
5 657
0.99
Zambia
6 618
2.76
Mozambique
3 851
2.1
Adopted from Jayne et al. (2002)
Household Per Capita Land Access
(ha) Quartile
Average
0.41
0.24
0.28
0.71
0.16
0.22
0.56
0.48
1
0.08
0.03
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.08
0.12
0.10
2
0.17
0.12
0.15
0.10
0.06
0.15
0.26
0.26
3
0.31
0.22
0.26
0.16
0.13
0.25
0.48
0.40
4
1.10
0.58
0.62
0.39
0.43
0.60
1.36
1.16
Gini Coefficients
Land per Land per
HH
capita
Land per
adult
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.55
0.54
0.55
0.43
0.52
0.43
0.54
0.41
0.54
0.44
0.45
0.50
0.51
0.51
0.48
In some parts of Central Africa the scarcity of productive lands is the key source of conflict. In countries
like Rwanda and Burundi, scarcity of land is at the root of the civil unrest. With a total population of
about 8.3 million in 2000, Rwanda is the most densely populated country in Africa and its population
growth rate remains very high at 3.6%. Only about 52% of Rwanda (1,385,000 ha) is estimated to be
arable and Kairaba (2002) points out that the average plot size in Rwanda declined from 2 hectares in
1960 to 1.2 hectares by 1984. About 60% of all agricultural holdings in Rwanda are less than 0.5 hectares
in size. Over population in Rwanda contributes to environmental degradation as people resort to
cultivation of steep slopes with inadequate skills for managing soils and water resources. The problem of
refugees, created by years of civil unrest, has compounded conflicts over land. Access to land is also a
major problem in Burundi where population densities ranges from 41-1,000/km2. Burundi also has
refugee problems, which started in the early 1970s. As in Rwanda, the land left vacant by the refugees has
since been occupied and their return is a threat to a significant portion of the population.
34
3.1.2.2 Land control differentiation
The emergence of distribution problems in non-settler countries through rural differentiation processes,
which heightened from the 1970s to the 1990s, suggest that a new generation of land concentration is
emerging. The accumulation logic of new social forces emanating from the maturation of an African petit
bourgeoisie two generations after independence drives this new land concentration now seen largely in the
hands of retired public servants, professionals, indigenous business people and other urban elites. These
social forces and interest groups emerged from earlier nationalist, political and administrative leaderships,
traditional chieftaincy elites, and new post-independence middle class elements. They follow an
accumulation treadmill of agrarian export markets, which flourishes alongside the widespread variety of
poor rural peasantries and semi-proletarian, or lumpen elements, which ‘straddle’ both arenas. Such rural
differentiation partly explains the growing and in some cases potential demand for land reform policies,
which can deliver land rapidly in both urban and rural areas, but largely in favour of elites.
While African nationalist movements promised rural development with equity, based on equitable access
to land and natural resources, following a philosophy of African egalitarianism, the resulting post
independence reality however has been the increased differentiation of rural land ownership accompanied
by agrarian capitalist class formation and enclave based rural development. A rural differentiation process
based on land monopoly which is a universal phenomenon (Van der Ploeg, 1990), has led to uneven
incomes and consumption patterns in rural areas, contradicting the myth that Africa has abundant land and
that customary land tenure systems prevent inequitable land structures or landlessness and restrict
agrarian differentiation (see also Neocosmos, 2003; Bernstein, 2004).
Evidence from Kenya, Malawi, Ivory Coast, Botswana, Somalia, Mozambique, Ghana, Nigeria and
Zambia reveal that the picture of rural land inequality is rising in Africa with the emergence of capitalist
farmers and rural heterogeneity based on accumulation of land control and access. While this trend has
received some academic comment, its scale, pace, and intensity as well as its social impacts and causes
have not been adequately treated. Policy responses to these growing land distributional inequities and
accumulation by elites tend to be contradictory. The current neo-liberal interpretation of the land question
emphasises a liberal political and market framework of land rights, which seeks to protect existing
landowners rather than pursue issues of social justice, through which popular land rights can only be
secured through extensive redistribution of land and natural resources.
35
This policy reform bias in line with aid-led structural adjustment programme (SAP) prescriptions in
Africa continue to promote the interests of white business, black middle classes and global capital rather
than the survival and economic needs of the landless rural poor and working classes. Neoliberal
interpretations of the democratisation process focus on the rule of law rather than restitution issues in land
reform discourses. The result of this is to protect minority land rights over those of the indigenous and
majority rural poor. Yet pressures for redistributive land reform however seem to grow as rural
differentiation increases and various social classes compete for land.
Even after extensive land reforms, the emerging Zimbabwean agrarian structure, based on the class
origins of those who gained access to land, the basis of their land tenure rights and farm sizes allocated
has been a source of differential class based landholdings, mirroring the generalized forms of classed
based inequities in land and related resources control found elsewhere in Africa. Expanded repeasantisation has been a dominant phenomenon under the fast-track land reform. (Moyo and Yeros,
2004).
The new petty-commodity producers now amounting to about 1.3 million families account for 93.7
percent of total new farming establishments, with about 138,000 smallholders having been provided 56%
of the newly land acquired. The large majority of the beneficiaries are peasants originating directly from
communal areas. This process has combined with a renewed ‘merchant path’ of urban professionals, petty
bourgeois, and bureaucrats, amounting to 19,260 small, middle, and large farmers, gaining about 38% of
the acquired land (ibid). Urbanites also gained from the A1 settlement scheme intended for the crowded
peasants and landless in general, with approximately 20 percent of the total redistributed land having been
allocated to them. However, the land reform process downsized and retained 1,323 white large-scale
commercial farms. War veterans received less land than originally targeted 20% of the land, while women
received less than 15% of the land in their own right. Since by the end of 2003, about 20% of the 10
million hectares acquired had not yet been allocated, due to various land allocation bottlenecks and settler
conflicts, the full class based impacts of land access are yet to be seen.
The expanded peasantry can be expected to maintain the dual semi-proletarian income strategy of pettycommodity production and wage labour, especially as differentiation proceeds (ibid). Class differentiation
among the peasantry, driven inter alia by agro-ecological variation, off-farm incomes, and local political
power, and access to differential land sizes, is expected to continue, alongside the operation of informal
land markets in the customary tenure areas (ibid). ‘Small farming capitalists’ which possess below 50
36
hectares, historically comprise below 10 percent of the peasantry and employ substantial non-family
labour from other peasants and the remaining landless, reforming their political significance in the
farmers’ lobby. These differ from the old and new middle agrarian capitalists with up to 150 hectares,
whom they compete with in the accumulation process, given their better access to other means of
production (credit and technology), to contacts and information, and to the policy-making process itself
(ibid). New ‘large capitalist’ farms (black and white) which range in size from 150 to 1,500 hectares,
depending on natural region, enjoy even better access to economic and political resources.
Critically, these capitalist farmers all pay farm wages that are well below the current poverty datum line
(Kanyenze cited by MDC, 2004), and procure the labour from former LSCF workers, unemployed
relatives from communal area households, and growing unemployed urban workers. These differentiation
processes accompany wider class and intra-elite struggles for accumulation through the control of policy
in general, financial mechanisms, infrastructures and water, and lead to the consolidation of new land
concentration and labour exploitation tendencies.
For example, the experience of post independence Nigeria’s agrarian development strategy and land
policy has for instance had the effect of promoting pervasive co-modification of land, which hitherto was,
regarded as communal property. The attendant land grabbing has led to a decline in the proportion of land
available to the smallholding peasantry table. Indeed, it has led to peasants being manipulated by urban
and local `big wigs` pitted against one another in struggles for land (Egwu, 1998). Thus the rising spectre
of violent conflicts in Nigeria’s rural setting (see box 3-1) lends to credence to the argument that ethnic
identity is always mobilized in causes whose real utility can only be conceived in class terms (Darrow,
1974 cited by Oyugi, 1998; Sklar, 1967 cited by Osaghae, 1998).
In Kenya colonial land injustices and contemporary land policies have had far-reaching and varying
effects on the control and access to land by the majority of the people. Increasingly land ownership
patterns are derived from endowments arising from class differentiation strategies, which emerged in
the colonial era (Lumumba and Kanyinga, 2003), and have lead to growing landlessness. Thus 20% of the
Kenyan population own over 50% of the arable land, while the rest own an average of one acre, and 13%
are landless, or do not have any protectable right over land, and are referred to as “squatters,”
“trespassers” or “adverse possessors” (Ibid). The colonial Swynnerton land tenure reform plan led to a
markedly skewed distribution of land, with chiefs, loyalists, and the wealthy acquiring more land than
others while the lower social groups lost considerable amounts of land, especially where they had not
37
Box 3-1: Case study of the Mambila plateau
The Mambila plateau is naturally endowed; and has attracted both agriculturists and pastoralist (George 1990), and accounts for its mixed
ethnic configuration. Ethnic groups include Mambila (believed to be the first settlers), Kaka, Kamba and Banso, as well as Fulani pastoralists
and settled Hausa communities. Significantly is occupationally differentiated along ethnic lines. The Mambila’s are predominantly peasant
farmers, the Fulbe pastoralists, while the Banso and Kamba control commerce. The most significant way in which the socio-economic system
influences the emergence of interethnic violence, since the 1980s revolves around management of the land.
The ecological depletion of the plateau due to widespread sheet erosion and reinforces the dilemma facing the farmers. Thus the changing
patterns in land use, occupational differentiation along ethnic lines and demographic change lead to a distinct pattern of social differentiation.
Increasing landlessness marginalized the Mambila peasant farmers, vis-à-vis the more prosperous Fulani grazers and the commercially
inclined Banso and Kamba. Where the Mambila pursue court adjudication over the conflicts related to land, the pastoralists use their
economic power to pervert the course of justice. Ethnic clashes between the Mambilas and other communal groups in the 1980s and the
continued tension on the plateau is thus squarely rooted in agrarian matters. The Mambilas have used varied strategies to address their plight,
including becoming tenant farmers or migrating to Cameroon or resisting oppression. However most Mambilas have expressed their
resistance to oppression and exploitation by violent means, directed to all those perceived as `strangers` rather than the grazers and urban
elite who pose immediate threat to land.’ The Mambila political leaders promise their vote use their positions to change in the status quo by
redistributing land to the Mambila whose birth right had been denied by aliens’.
While the land mass has remained static, the cattle and human populations have increased exponentially, peaking in the 1970s and leading to
increased land conflicts and heightened overgrazing with the direct consequences on local economy performance and inter-ethnic relations,
as ethnic and occupational boundaries overlap. Landholding on the plateau is heavily skewed against the smallholders who constitute 98% of
the population (table 2), while the grazers and large estates that account for 1,1%of the population control most of the land. Between 1979
and 1989 about 115 individuals and companies had acquired 14,655hectares of land through the land and Survey Ministry in Yola, an
average of 122 hectares per person. Similarly, within the same period, the Sandauna Local Government made a total allocation covering
8,815 hectares an average of 93 hectares per person.
participated in this colonial adjudication of land rights (Lumumba and Kanyinga, 2003). This has
generated continued post-colonial land disputes based on decreased tenure security amongst the majority
(Haugerud, 1983, 1989; Shipton, 1988; Fleuret, 1988, Mackenzie, 1990), and has led to open abuse of
land allocations by those involved in defining the existing structure of land rights.
Table 3-3: Summary of statistics on cattle and human population on the Mambila plateau
Periods
Cattle number
1930
1949
1963
1979
1989
18,181
120,000
234.980
450,000
617,643
Human
population
95,148
134,256
169,872
Land area (Ha)
498-500
-
No of Divided
area
32
-
Towns and villages
290
-
Source: Gembu Tax Office
Table 3-4: Land use categories on the Plateau, 1976-1990
Type of holding
Small scale holding
Grazing land holding
Large estate
Built up area
Degraded area
No of
holders
51,389
360
210
-
% Of Total
population
98,90
0,70
0,40
-
Natural Forests
Total
51,959
100.00
Source: Gembu Tax Office, Ministry of land Survey Office, Gembu
Total average
covered (ha)
28,000
304,500
23,500
250
37,750
4,500
% Of total
covered
7,1
76,4
5,9
0,1
9,4
1,1
0,53
890,3
111,3
-
398,500
100,00
-
Ave Holding (ha)
In North Africa, smallholder agriculture has increased in countries like Tunisia and Algeria, a situation
that is general, responding to, inter alia: the growing population; the influence of the Islamic inheritance
38
system; a widespread tradition of partial renting or purchase of agricultural parcels; and government land
policies that have failed to reinforce legal provisions prohibiting the subdivision of holdings below an
approved minimum size (E1-Ghonemy, 1993). In Egypt, smallholders constitute almost 96% of the total
number of agricultural households. In Morocco, where small holdings (of less than 5 hectares) constitute
69% of total holdings (ibid), there is one of the most skewed land tenure situations in North Africa, with
60% of the small farmers holding less than 20% of the land area, while the top 20% hold 58% (Ghimire,
2001).
The above discussions on land scarcities and differentiation of landholdings reflects to a large extent
processes of land concentration from below. The more critical route to land concentration arises from
‘above’, through land policies and land allocation systems, which favour elites in both rural and urban
areas. For example, since Kenya’s land law grants enormous powers of control of land to the President
who holds land in trust for the state, the President tends to grant land to a few individuals and corporate
interests. This concentration of power over land in the Presidency and the central government has
undermined the pressure for the democratisation of land ownership, and has eroded the social bases of
popular institutions for regulating land allocations, due to individualization of much of the land. This
process has affected the majority of the lands utilized by pastoralists who occupy and use over two thirds
of Kenya landmass (Ibid).
From the early 1990s, pressures for political liberalization led to the appropriation of government land by
political elites at an even a faster pace, as Moi struggled to retain a clientele of loyalists (Ibid). Thus elites
appropriated the land in question for their political project against the multi-partyist opposition and
resurrected the Majimbo land demand to deflect the multiparty debates. This reactivated demands for
territory in the Rift Valley and on the coast (as happened in the 1960s) and led to ethnic land clashes
between members of former KADU groups and the immigrant population in the Rift Valley, and later on
in the coast, between the Mijikenda and upcountry Kikuyu and Luo immigrants. Large groups of Kikuyu
families were evicted from the Rift Valley, their titles to land notwithstanding (Lumumba and Kanyinga,
2003).
Even in Uganda, post-colonial land reforms led to the accumulation of huge tracts of land in the hands of
the politically powerful elite at the expense of the peasantry. All institutions of land governance were later
taken over by the state in 1991, leading to the distortion of land distribution by ad hoc land allocation
practises and conflict (Lumumba and Kanyinga, 2003).
39
But these land conflicts reflect wider resource based conflicts, including competition for grazing and
water resources, as well as disputes over community territorial land and district borders, especially
because in large parts of Africa land use is dominated by pastoralism, which is the only economic and
social livelihood in various countries. For example in Kenya, physical confrontations have assumed wellorganized military tactics including: killing people, destroying property and burning houses. Animals are
raided in large numbers, of even up to over 1,000 livestock in a single raid (Peacenet-Kenya, 2001). The
political motivation of such violent land conflicts is a common phenomenon, given the tendency for
politicians to manipulate them. For example, in the Rift Valley region of Kenya, (covering Trans-mara,
Narok, Kajiado, Usin Gishu and Elgeyo Marakwet, Pokot, TransaNzoia, Laikipia and Nakuru North Rift)
political violence is associated with the fact that residents are dissatisfied by the existing land tenure
policies and the general legal regime responsible for land because it does not clearly address their land
rights and land leases (Ibid). Yet at another level, there is evidence of rampant crop theft and crop
destruction instigated and executed by rival communities (Ibid).
Thus in general the causes of land concentrations in non- settler Africa include: the grabbing and sale of
communal land and favouritism in its allocation; partisan roles of security agents in mediating conflicts;
the squatting in communal land; the commercialization of cattle rustling and competition over natural
resources such as pastures, water and livestock; human and wildlife land use conflicts. In many areas
political intimidation including the use of illegal firearms has become common.
Therefore, the existing differentiated structure and patterns of land holdings in Africa are based upon a
unique distribution of demographic features including population, wealth, income, and employment
patterns, which define economic and political control. Because groups of indigenous elites and foreign
multinational companies, benefited from both colonial land reallocations and from post-independence
process of differential access to land has led to the dislocation of indigenous populations.
These processes of differential access to land and the growing tendency for unequal structures of
landholdings or land concentration have emerged from ‘below’ and from ‘above’. From ‘above’, land
allocation and land reform policies have tended to promote land accumulation by the direct official
provision and private ‘grabbing’ of large landholdings to the elite, while from ‘below’, processes of local
agrarian and power differentiation have encouraged local elites to amass larger landholdings amidst
growing land scarcities, land shortages and landlessness. While unequal land holding structures are not as
40
extreme as in the white settler territories, process of land concentration on a significant scale can be
discerned in Africa.
3.1.3 African migrations: labour, land access and exclusion
The land question in various settler and non-settler African countries has for decades been defined by
rural migrations within defined national borders and across them. Various sources of movement, ranging
from institutionalised migrant labour processes in various parts of the continent, ‘tenant’ farmer
migrations notable in west Africa (Nigeria, Ghana and Ivory Coast) as studied by earlier anthropologists
(Hill, 1963; Berry, 1988) and geographers (Udo, 1969) as well as other voluntary and involuntary
migrations (e.g. DRC, Uganda, Mauritania, etc) have defined settlement and production relations. Access
to land and exclusion, through customary usufruct land tenure systems and assimilation processes define
recent land struggles and conflicts. The question of the ‘native’ settler has been interrogated by Mahmood
Mandani, focusing on citizenship and land access and exclusion issues.
In Ivory Coast conflicts over land, especially in the South (between long term migrants from the North
and from neighbouring countries in the north), are an underlying source of the current political conflict
and armed rebellion. Land conflicts emerged when political (electoral) competition led to the questioning
of the citizenship (hence voting) rights of immigrant, in relation to their land and residency rights in the
south and west. Attempts to introduce new land tenure and citizenship laws in the late 1990’s gave an
impetuous to land conflicts. Land conflicts revolved around differences over policy changes which led to
decentralized management of land and natural resources in order to restore decision–making powers to
local communities and legislative reforms which promoted the privatization of land through land
registration in open recognition of local rights (Delville, 1999).
Migrants in the Ivory Coast, who because of the lack of proof of their citizenship and land tenure status
can be refused formal land certificates, represent 11 to 45% of the population, while the non-Ivorian
growers who can expect, at best, the right to rent land, represent between 22% and 43% of the population.
This has diminished the sense of land security among “successful farmers” in the more productive areas
of Ivory Coast, particularly in the Southwest, where young orchards are still maturing and, migrant and
“foreign” operators are aggrieved by the new land law (Zalo, 2001). The new land law also affects the
incomes of the indigenous people, who find themselves holders of land title documents that have been
withheld from the migrants, and whose production capacities are limited by various technical and
financial constraints. This raises the risk of increased inequality emerging within the indigenous
populations since holding land title does not automatically lead to increased output and agricultural
41
stability. Furthermore, individual land ownership or access among young operators is currently difficult,
especially in western Ivory Coast, and will probably be affected by the new laws (at the cost of intrafamily tensions), if land is monopolized, as it seems to be, by elders, given that the new law reinforces
gerontocratic parameters of land rights bidding (Ibid).
Thus the land conflicts in Ivory Coast are not new, as they have existed since 1950, although they have
taken a more violent form since the 1990s, with the disappearance of the forest, the scarcity of available
land for a new generation of growers, and the drastic reduction of the incomes drawn from the urban
activities for the large majority of the population originally from rural areas, especially the youth (Zalo,
2001). The initial and direct origin of these conflicts is not always a conflict about access to and use of
land, but in certain cases it stems from the questioning by the indigenous people of land use rights
acquired by the migrants, (Zalo, 2001).
Settler land expropriation and cheap labour based commercial agriculture have over the last century also
generated extensive problems for the land rights of migrant workers on a sub-regional scale, alongside the
lower racial land inequities. The land rights of migrant full time and seasonal farm workers, in large scale
white commercial farming areas in countries such as South Africa and Zimbabwe, moving especially
from Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique to South Africa and Zimbabwe, have been seriously
abrogated for long. Both the “serf-like” labour tenancy system and poor working conditions upheld by the
landlords and the ‘contestation’ of their citizenship rights, given the exclusionary migrant and citizenship
laws there, have led to the questioning of their land rights and ‘belonging’ (see also Geschiere and
Nyamnjoh, 2000).
Farm workers in settler farming systems tend to present empirical difficulties, given their dual ‘identity’
as migrant workers (national and foreign) and ‘members’ of customary tenure area societies as farmers or
workers. For example, in Zimbabwe prior to fast-track land reform, the large-scale commercial farming
sector (LSCF) employed 350,000 workers, of which 70 percent were of communal-area origin, 50% of the
total being part-time or seasonal workers. After the fast-track land reform, officially declared ‘farm
workers’ as well as farm workers who gained access to land as ‘landless peasants’ through communal area
land bidding systems, amounted to only about 5 percent (or 8,750) of the total land beneficiaries, although
they constitute about 12% of the population. A large number of farm workers were stranded
(Magaramombe, 2003; Chambati and Moyo, 2003; Sachikonye, 2003), given that not more than 100,000
remain employed in the combined commercial farm sector.
42
Some of the official discourses focused on repatriating such farm workers, in spite of them having been in
Zimbabwe for over 60 years or on maintaining them only as workers for new farmers, rather than address
their land rights in their own right. The land rights of farm workers in terms of their access to residential
land and infrastructures on LSCF land and access to small food security plots have for decades been
informal and incidental to their provision of specific labour services to landowners. While a few have
been resettled, some were displaced, and many reside on farms without secure land rights. Land reforms
should have addressed their demands more effectively, including demand for pieces of agricultural lands
and farm worker residential compounds with the social services they contain. A key unaddressed problem
remains, needs to reduce conflicts between settlers and former farm workers and the integration of former
farm workers in the farming communities to enhance their ‘belonging’ and land rights.
Formal labour tenants, who have some farming base in South Africa amount to approximately 50,000,
while about 2 million families (?) are full and part-time farm workers. Slow land redistribution has forced
most of South Africa’s rural poor including, the black rural landless workers into worsening poverty and
frustration over bureaucratic land reforms, as well as worsening working conditions on white commercial
farms. Farm workers face continual land evictions, which the state seems unwillingly or unable to stem.
Gross human rights abuses by white farmers against labour tenants and farm workers. Besides the
growing demands by farm worker for access to land over 1,500 killings of white farmers raise questions
about the nature of land politics in South Africa. The re-engineering of labour processes aiming to reduce
the status of labour tenants to the even less protected category of “farm workers”(NLC), and the extent to
which farmers as employers and landowners can punish farm workers by expulsion as an ultimate
sanction or charge them with trespass notices, demolish their homes and close their access to water taps
and natural resources (e.g. rivers), bar tenants from rearing livestock emphasizes their insecure or
inadequate land rights. This power over labour rests on the constitutional protection of landlordism and
the failure of the market assisted land reform approach to redistribute land and recognise migrant
labourers’ land rights.
3.1.4 Ethnic and regional differentiation in land control and inequalities
Colonial and post-independence land policies tended not only to alienate land, albeit on small scale, but to
partition national economies into regional enclaves of growth and, land and resources concentration
alongside marginalized regions. The Ugandan colonial state partitioned the country into economic zones,
whereby for example, a large portion of the territory south of Lake Yoga was the designated focus of cash
crop growing and industrial activity, while the territory north of Lake Kyoga was designated as a labour
reserve. The targeting and enclosure of currently ‘mailo lands’ for tenure reform was one instrument in
43
this, which led to land conflicts. This partition, not dictated by development potentials alone, led to
economic disparities between the south and the north, and the fragmentation of the society through the
colonial economic-cum-administrative policy that divided the civil service and the army largely along
ethnic lines. The divide and rule policy of using the Baganda as colonial agents in other parts of the
country, which rested on so-called ‘indirect rule’, led to widespread anti-Buganda sentiment (Otunnu and
Laloyo).
Land conflicts within Ethiopia for example commonly take the shape of ‘ethnic’ struggles among
pastoralist groups competing for the control of grazing lands and water supplies, especially during
droughts (Flintan and Tamrat, 2002). Such land conflicts escalated following the demarcation of
boundaries which fragmented pastoral groups and impeded cross border movements which essentially
undermined the viability of customary land and resource-use systems (Ibid). The Haud pastures found in
the Ogaden region, for example, have long been a source of conflict between the Ogaden and the Ishaq
Somali clan’s, although earlier competition to control the Haud pastures rarely entailed large loss of life
(Ibid). Following the colonial scramble for the control of the horn of Africa, conflicts took a more
political nature. The Ogaden, where the Haud pastures are situated, came under Ethiopian territory under
the 1887 Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement. Since the Ishaq were under British administered Somaliland and
outside Ethiopian territory, the claim to the Haud pastures between the Ogaden and Ishaq clans became an
even larger land question of territorial dispute (Ibid). These ‘ethnic’ land conflicts stem from the
marginalization of some regions by a state that monopolizes the control of the production and distribution
of resources, through favouring some group, (particularly the highland of Amhara and Tigrai ruling elites
in Ethiopia) while discriminating against others such as the Oromo or Somali in the south and east
(Flintan and Tamrat, 2002).
Territorially based ethnic clashes over land are common also in Kenya, where the Kalenjin and the
Maasai have condemned especially the Kikuyu settlement of their land, while the latter assert their
national citizenship rights to such land (East Africa Standard 1 September 1992 cited by Lumumba,
2003). This situation was occasioned by the preferential settlement of the landless Kikuyu under the Land
Transfer Scheme started by the colonial government on the eve of independence (Haberson, 1973 cited by
Oyugi, 1998). The government ignored protests over this leading, the Kalenjin to organize resistance to
further settlement, and thereafter resulting, culminating in the Nandi-Luhya clashes of the 1980’s (Oyugi,
1998), in which the mobilisation of ethnic sentiment over ancestral land ownership generated violent
conflict (Ibid).
44
Historical colonial alliances over the control of land explain some of these land conflicts. The alliance
between the British administrators and the Yao elite in Malawi for example, deepened when the latter
were chosen as the instrument for indirect rule:
“…. with loyal Yao chiefs ruling over docile Nguru workers to further the successes of the European plantation
economy and to maintain order. The Yao chiefs … in so doing … were promoting their own personal and economic
power rather than any broadly conceptualized notion of Yao unity or identity. The great majority of Yao-speakers
remained Muslim and hence were hostile to the establishment of the sort of Christian schools” (Vail and White, 1989).
Major African migrations were instigated from the turn of the last century by colonial political and
economic restructurings aimed at external extraction, including in large and small scale processes of land
alienation which fractured pre-colonial economies and source relations of production and redirected
labour recruitment and utilisation processes. The roots of current land inequities and conflicts, for
instance, in Kenya, where the Luhya, Kisii and the Nilotics, had mixed economies, whose trading
strategies linked them to the Maasai in a political-economics system, can be found in colonial land
alienation and labour recruitment processes. Colonial policies, by creating a common politicoadministrative centre, had the effect of bringing together all “tribes” under one central authority, which
was divided into local state ethnic administrative enclaves, which confined the “natives” to reserves. The
colonial alienation of land in Nakuru, Laikipia, Nyandarua, Uasin Gishu and Trans- Nozia in what was
traditionally Maasiland robbed the Maasi of grazing land thereby constraining their economic activities.
Large-scale land alienation in Kikuyuland engendered squatter farming among the Kikuyu, especially in
white settled areas in the Rift Valley. By 1918, 10% of the Kikuyu had become squatters, such that the
Anti-Kikuyu crusade between the Kalenjin and the Maasai in contemporary Kenya has to be explained
partly from this colonial heritage (Oyugi, 1998).
In some countries, the spatial re-ordering of villages and family was instrumentalised by the colonialists
to consolidate ethnic based power structures of their choice, and created a framework within which taxes
could be collected, migration regulated and selected land allocation and access strategies pursued to suited
their interests. In Malawi for example, during the 1910 period,
“…. 'Villages' for Yao headmen had to be created from the ethnic soup ... [this because]… houses were 'scattered in
twos and threes all about the place', making it difficult to collect taxes and to keep good order generally. The British
ordered that houses be 'concentrated' into groups of no fewer than twenty. Many thousands of people had to be
relocated, and it was impossible to join four adjacent settlements and appoint a headman without political trouble. The
majority of those most directly affected by hut concentration were Nguru, for the power of the newly appointed Yao
village headmen to allocate land put all immigrants firmly in their power.” (Vail and White, 1989).
Chiefly control over land effectively made Nguru labour available to the Yao chiefs and headmen on
akapolo ('slave') terms, just as it had been made available to the European planters through the thangata
45
system (Ibid). This colonial government-sponsored political differentiation between Yao chiefs and Nguru
commoners had a clear economic foundations, such as the fact that by April 1916, year after village
consolidation had begun, tobacco was being cultivated as a cash crop (Vail and White, 1989), in a
regionally differentiated agrarian economy and land control structure. Thus, many African social or ethnic
conflicts over socio-economic dominance are structured by the unequal control over land and national
resources, which are the key source of livelihood and wealth, and of the means to pay for education and
hence to attain non-agricultural employment. Such conflicts however vary depending on the specific
histories of land concentration, the farming systems and political economic structures that sustain the
resource control inequalities.
Access to land even in settler colonial Africa had also been mobilized around “traditional” ethnic
structures, including by urbanites not resident in the jurisdiction in which such land rights are claimed, as
part of the response to racial discrimination over land. Nicholas Cope (1990) argues that the “….
formation of Inkatha by the Northern Natal petty bourgeoisie was [intended] to enable them to cooperate
with rural chiefs in the purchase and development of land: 'Inkatha was seen as a means through which
commercial agriculture could be promoted on land purchased ostensibly by a "tribe", since non-tribal
land-buying syndicates had been practically outlawed following the 1913 (Natives Land) Act.' Albert
Luthuli purportedly revived the Groutville Cane Growers' Association and founded the Natal and
Zululand Bantu Cane Growers' Association, to foster the interests of the small-scale African sugar
growers and negotiate on their behalf with millers (Marks, 1989). In 1942, when he stood for election to
the Native Representative Council with Zulu Society support, his platform included a request to the
government for 'more help to the rural community in their farming operations'; the establishment of 'a
Land Bank for Bantus'; improvements in the general status of chiefs and chiefs' courts; the acquisition of
land by the government for Africans; local government or councils in 'advanced communities' such as
Edendale; the extension of education in rural areas; and 'more civilized salaries for black teachers” (Ibid).
These types of struggles over land and traditional authority over land administration continue today
(Neocosmos, 2003)
Disruption of ‘indigenous and minorities’ land rights
The land question in Africa also takes the peculiar shape of the disruption and marginalisation of the
collective land and territorial rights of ‘indigenous’ and ethnic minorities by ethnic majorities, especially
in areas remote from central economic enclaves, or where new resource opportunities (oil, diamonds,
tourism and ranching) have emerged in recent time. This source of the land question has tended to be
underplayed in research, even though it tends to be a common in many countries, such as Kenya,
46
Tanzania, Botswana and in the Sahelia zone. For example, in Botswana, land problems with ethnic
dimensions obtain, although official discourses on land are tampered by the hegemonic neo-liberal
paradigm which suggests that there are no substantive differences between key political parties on
fundamental questions relating to class based ownership of the means of production, except around elites
quarrels over sharing national resources (Molomo, 2003). Yet the land rights of indigenous ethnic groups
who are either minorities in size or marginalized by their remote location and ‘underdevelopment’, tend to
be abrogated.
To elaborate, the minority Basarwa, referred to as remote area dwellers, in terms of their spatial position
and political power, have historically been a servile underclass exploited by dominant Tswana groups, and
other so-called minority groups as cattle herders and labourers (Molomo, 2003). Removed from the major
urban centres and, gaining limited government rural development and infrastructural facilities, they were
recently moved out of the large area in northern Botswana called Central Kalahari Game Reserve
(CKGR), in a manner which subverted their land rights and natural resources based livelihoods, in order
to expand the national tourist industry. Also large tracts of land have over the last 30 years been parcelled
out of “customary lands” and given to over 1,000 indigenous elites, who now comprise a dominant land
controlling class with access to state support for livestock farming, at the expense of small-scale
pastoralists and agriculturists. Whereas this land expropriation has been done in accordance with the “rule
of law,” and in an ‘orderly’ and ‘gradual’ manner, is ample empirical evidence of the long-term process of
land concentration and scattered land struggles.
Various studies by Shivji (1998a, 1998b, 1999) and others on pastoral land rights in East Africa, the Horn
of Africa demonstrate the generally tendency for pastoralists to be displaced from land, and their
livelihoods disrupted, fuelling conflicts over access to land, land use contradictions and intensified for
water and livestock resources.
3.1.5 Foreign control of land: agriculture, mining and natural resources
Other forms of important but less widespread marginalisation and inequalities in land, include the
growing tendencies for land to be concessioned and sold to foreign companies and other entities. These
are tied to investment agreements and varied enterprises, ranging from agriculture, tourism, forestry,
winning arid residential investments, in which nationals may or not have shares.
A diverse and differentiated structure of land tenure and land use also exists among African foreign and
specifically white population. Racial ownership of land ranges from family landowners to a few white47
dominated large companies – most of which are multinational companies with strong international
linkages. Whilst these companies tend to under use most of their land, it is however the nationality and
citizenship of large landowners that is mostly contested. In Zimbabwe it is estimated that between 20,000
and 30,000 white Zimbabweans are British and South Africans with dual citizenship.1 While the
definition of who is indigenous remains contested, including for non-white members of minority groups
who are citizens by birth or through naturalization, absentee land ownership exacerbates feelings against
foreign land ownership. In Namibia, corporate ownership of lands hides the influx of foreign landowners,
particularly those who are shifting land use from agricultural use to tourism.
Foreign land ownership has a historical and contemporary dimension to it. Past colonial land
expropriation tends to now be reinforced by new land concessions to foreign investors. This tends to be
complicated socially and politically by the physical absence of many foreign large-scale landowners.
Foreign landowners increasingly use stock holding land tenure arrangements for the control of land,
especially in the growing eco-tourist industry, thus increasing the globalization of the region’s land
question (Moyo, 2000). The rural poor are thus marginalized from their own land and their livelihood
systems undermined, provoking increasing land struggles.
The market paradigm shift of the 1980s saw new waves of migration by white large farmers into Zambia,
Mozambique and Democratic Republic of Congo. This migration encouraged by neo-liberal investment
policies has led to increased foreign land ownership in many countries, and pressures for increased private
land tenure property regimes in order to protect investments. The agricultural sector has been prime target
of such investment through lucrative incentives provided for foreign investment especially in export
processing zones.
In most settler and non-settler countries multinational companies have been the predominant force in the
unequal control of land, which is held for various uses such as agriculture, mining, oilfields, forest and
wildlife terroirs, thus ensconcing an important international dimension upon the land question. While
some countries in Africa have low white settler populations, it is the increasing control of large swathes of
land and natural resources by multi-national conglomerates in for instance, Nigeria, Tanzania,
Mozambique, the DRC, Cameroon etc, that has created new forms of land and resources conflicts
(Mkandawire, 2002).
1 Dual citizenship is not legal in Zimbabwe and new amendments to tighten the law have recently been introduced also generating problems around the citizenship of long standing Mozambicans
48
This trend of growing land concentration is quite common throughout Africa. For example, increased
privatisation of state lands in Mozambique, as part of the foreign investment drive has crowded out the
poor onto the worst lands. This has created grounds for incipient racial animosity, as foreigners and white
South Africans tend to dominate this investment.
Although some specific land policies forbid foreign ownership of land, incentives and other mechanisms
have been put in place to allow foreigners access to land for commercial production. For example, there
has been a dramatic shift of policy in Tanzania in relation to the right of foreigners to access land (ibid)
and foreigners can now access land for a lease period that can go up to 99 years, subject to the foreign
investor entering into a joint venture with locals, as represented by the village government or the village
cooperative society (Shivji, 1998). Thus, land has been alienated to hoteliers for the purposes of tourism
in or around national parks and on prime beach sites, exclusive hunting rights were granted to foreign
investors, land has been alienated to breeders of exotic birds, cultivators of flowers, and miners of gems,
and for projects for game ranching, game cropping and cattle ranches.
In a variety of African countries state based control and distribution of mineral resources and related rents
and services have been a key source for land control and wealth differentials. Struggles over such
resource control are most notable in Nigeria, Cameroon, Angola, Sudan, DRC and South Africa. The
discovery and exploitation of oil has become the major source of post-independence conflict in Sudan,
with the government annexing oil bearing lands to the north of Sudan within a Unitary state created
against southerners (Goldsmith et al. 2002), while the southerners consider the oil theirs. Thus access to,
and control of the oil fields and the petroleum wealth is critical to the financing of the Sudanese civil war
(Ibid).
However the major land conflicts occur in those African countries and within those regions of high
mineral potential. For example, the best soils and minerals resources of the DRC tend to be located in
peripherimeter of the country, hence the distribution of population and conflict in these border zones. For
instance the Kivu provinces, “… which have been under rebel control during 1998-2002, ranks among the
most productive regions in Africa. The region is indeed a critical supplier of water, energy, food and
arable land. Most farmers can yield up to three harvests a year ... [and] would … probably be in a better
shape had it not been known for its minerals (including coltan), as it has now become the target of
extensive, though illegal, natural resource exploitation within the framework of a wider conflict system
and Malawian farm worker migrants who have not yet denounced their original citizenship.
49
involving a myriad of actors and interest” (Moyroud and Katanga, 2002). The complex manner in which
national and international alliances over mineral resource and hence land control gains dramatic
expression in the DRC as well as in the Niger delta region, bringing into question federalism and ethnic
balancing strategies of nation building and of allocations resources
The continued importance of external neo-colonial forces in fostering unequal land and resource control,
including exclusion and conflict tends however to be underplay by dominant discourses which instead
focus on “internalist” perspectives. The latter tend to argue that African primordial and ‘atomistic’
tendencies are central to the socio-political implosion and conflict in Africa, thus essentialising weak
governance systems. While internal mobilisation of land ownership concentration is critical, external
factors remain critical to the genesis and reproduction of this trend.
For example, whereas resources conflicts were not new to the Kivus region of the DRC, sub-regional or
neighbouring state interventions have attempted to shape ethnic dominance patterns there through
regional armed conflict for long (Moyroud and Katanga, 2002). Thus “… during the early 1990s a number
of clashes had occurred along the eastern border between Zaire, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda, primarily
between communities of Tutsi origin (Banyamulenge) resident in the DRC and local communities of
other ethnic origins but the DRC internal conflict dynamics were reinforced by the influx of the large
number of Rwandan refugees and armed Hutus, exacerbating tension between Hutus and Tutsis of south
of Kivu” (Ibid). Many localized conflicts between various communities (such as Hema/Lendu/Ngiti in the
Orientale province) also emerged, and the announced restrictions on the people of Tutsi descent-who had
lived in the DRC for generations –acted as a major triggering event and provided the opportunity to
recruit an armed rebel movement that galvanized the Tutsis and other groups in opposition to Mobutu’s
and later Kabila’s government in Kinshasa (Ibid), with the support of the Rwandan and Ugandan state.
This escalation and regionalization of conflict and polarization in the central Africa region became a
source of ethnic and inter-state mobilisation of control over access and use of mineral and other resources.
Countries which supported the DRC (Angola and Zimbabwe in particular) became part of this national
partition and resource conflict, towards foreign resource extraction and trade. Similar processes of internal
and external resource struggles were found in Angola, Sierra Leone and Liberia where the mobilisation
rebellions have been financed by mineral and resources exploitation (diamonds, timber etc), and in which
international trade has been critical.
50
Growing concentrations of land control in Africa, combines indigenous white and black elites and foreign
owners, including multinational firms, towards capital accumulation in agriculture, forestry, tourism and
the expanding urban real estate. The recent land concentration among national elites, to the exclusion of
the poor and ‘remote’ communities, has intended to generate increased inter-elite conflict and domestic
elite-external owner conflicts has raised contradictions for official policies aimed at developing agrarian
capitalism and tourism, towards export oriented land uses. Perhaps because foreign land ownership
concentration and struggles in countries such as Zambia, Botswana and Malawi, have been less
dramatically executed, than has been the case in the Zimbabwe land transfer process in recent times, the
processes are largely uncommented upon in African regional and international debates on the land
question.
The expansion of unequal land distribution structures in Africa, which are tied into evolving global
markets, begs many questions about the consistency of international neoliberal development strategy, and
their governance concerns over land reform, including the emergent black agrarian ‘crony’ elite, in
Zimbabwe. To boot, one of the major impacts of Zimbabwe’s land expropriation has been the
translocation of large scale white farmers from Zimbabwe to various countries in the region, including to
Mozambique (Kanyongolo, 2004), Zambia, Tanzania and even as far as Uganda, some of it apparently
facilitated by international finance, and domestic forces which provide them with cheap land leaseholds,
subsidized operating and investment capital and cheap labour (Moyo, forthcoming). The further regional
impact of both the white farmer relocations and the production fall in Zimbabwe has thus been the
incipience of restructured regional agricultural production and trade patterns (Ibid), where Zimbabwe
farm products such as milk, poultry, tobacco, sugar and seeds have found themselves in regional markets
in search of higher prices in forex, while production of tobacco, horticulture and even maize by former
Zimbabwe farmers has been on the increase in Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia.
Increased privatisation of state lands as part of the foreign investment drive has crowded out the poor on
to the worst lands. In Mozambique, although all land is constitutionally state land, “privatisation” of land
started in 1984 as part of the implementation of the structural adjustment programmes. This has created
grounds for racial animosity as foreigners and white South Africans tend to dominate this investment.
Confrontation over land in Zimbabwe has seen the emigration of white Zimbabweans to Mozambique.2
Mozambican officials have called for greater social integration of in-coming white farmers to avoid
2 Mozambique expects 100 white Zimbabweans commercial farmers, while 10 have been allocated 4 000 hectares in Manica province. A group of 63 white Zimbabweans had requested for
400,000 hectares, but the government of Mozambique has put a ceiling of 1,000 hectares per individual application (Daily News, 20/07/2001).
51
creation of “white islands” where commercial development outpaces that of the indigenous populations
who surround these new settlers.
3.2 Unequal land rights, discriminatory tenure systems and land market concentration
3.2.1 Introductory remarks
Contemporary land tenure systems, whether founded on customary systems of regulation (in law or
administration) or in statutory formal systems of tenure, are embedded in unequal and discriminatory
power structures and procedures, which allocate land unequally on the basis of class, gender ethnicity and
other forms of social hierarchy. The growing tendency for African land tenure systems to promote the
concentration of unequal landholdings have generated discriminatory and insecure tenure in the various
land tenure regimes and to provoke land conflicts and struggles, has in the last 4 decades been reinforced
by the emergence of inadequately regulated land markets.
By commodifying land, through land tenure and land administrative reform the concentration of land
along class hierarchy, tended to speed up land alienation and marginalisation of the rural and urban poor,
in terms of their residential and production livelihood needs. More critically land tenure reforms have
weakened the capacities of the poor and local administrative systems to protect local land rights or to
resist neo-liberal policies which regulate land uses against the interests of local food security and
accumulation. Attempts to spread freehold land tenure systems across customary land tenure regimes have
tended to originate from central state initiatives, promoted by elites and international finance capital, and
through this to consolidate the powers of the elite and official bureaucratic influence over land allocation
and adjudication systems.
One of the critical land questions which confronts Africa today therefore is the way in which land tenure
policy reforms, driven by a neo liberal framework of governance reforms, including the current focus on
decentralising the African state, have shifted the balance of powers and social control of land and resource
allocations between the central elites, and local power structures. Indeed the promotion of specific forms
of land administration systems, including of civil society organisations participation in local land and
development administration has tended to accompany advocacy for formal statutory land titling and
‘modernised’ land administrative structures of land tenure systems. In contrast to this, the majority of
rural Africans gain their land on the basis of customary rights rooted in notions of ‘community’ and
kinship, and through derived rights, including a series of informal contractual relations (such as
sharecropping) with those who hold primary rights. Yet while the African state has demonstrated a
52
predisposition towards promoting statutory land tenure systems, in very few cases it has demonstrated a
capacity to comprehensively reform land administration in this light, let alone to impose full control of
land tenure practices in most rural and some peri-urban areas.
A related land question arising from land tenure and distribution changes in Africa, is the extent to which
existing systems of adjudicating land disputes have been able to resolve the current and past land
problems, which arise where multiple tenure regimes have emerged and where land inequities have
grown. In most African countries, the legal framework for land adjudications has tended to be biased
towards the market and the state (Shivji et al 1998). Land courts remain elitist and western in orientation
and are inaccessible to the victims of past and present violations of land rights, especially where
indigenous and ‘local’ land have been expropriated or undermined. Yet unresolved conflicts over land and
other natural resources tend to undermine the capacity of the poor to produce their own food, arise to
adequately manage contested natural resources, and to fairly allocate land rights in the family and the
community, within a framework of gender based equity.
The extent to which land tenure reforms serve to manipulate local governance and central political
systems, is discussed further in section 5.0, while this section examines the changing land tenure regimes
and their impacts on provoking various land questions, whose historical and social character are
specifically, if not uniquely, African.
3.2.2 African land tenure systems: customary, tenure and landed property rights
The central land tenure problem therefore revolves in Africa around resistances and collaboration
struggles over the imposition of land management institutions and rules, during colonial and in postindependence times, which have served to diminish access to land and security of tenure among a
growing majority of citizens. Land tenure consists of the social relations established around the control
and use of land, while land tenure systems and their sets of tenure relations are interwoven and related to
other societal structures and institutions, including economic structures as well as family structures with
its marriage and inheritance practices (Lastarria,-Cornhiel, 2002). Land tenures, driven by various
approaches to maintaining and reproducing state power, class interests and social control through the
redirection of land control, land use regulations and social relations of production and reproduction, have
thus increasingly been a site of contested power and accumulation.
Historically, the genesis of land tenure reforms in Africa was established through conquest by Europeans
seeking to extract resources and dominate the polity. However, the diversity of the historical colonial
53
experience means that land tenure systems and problems vary considerably, albeit with some
commonalities. Alongside growing arable land scarcity, the denial in varying forms of access to land and
natural resources for the majority by landlords and the colonial and post-independence state, through
tenure systems and laws which exclude or through privatisation of land, shape the common legacy of
insecure and discriminatory land tenure systems. Understanding of the land tenure systems that obtained
in the pre-colonial states and the transformation process they went through as a result of colonialism is
critical to our appreciation of the land tenure conflicts that obtain today. Colonialism introduced new
dimensions to the form of land ownership and title, and land management, as well as to the rights and
responsibilities related to land and natural resources. Africa was colonised through a combination of
military conquest and unjust treaties and agreements (Mamdani, 1996; Berry, 1993), and unequal trade
and development, but the unique feature of its colonialism is that it defined land as a superimposed
statutory and private value on the land tenure system
According to Cheater (1988) the colonial powers initiated and nurtured the notion of customary tenure
with three key distortions. First was that the notion of community rights became so one-sided that it was
not in agreement with the concept of individual rights. Secondly, the definition of customary authorities
who would exercise the right to allocate community land for household use, mixed up ritual powers with
proprietary rights. Thirdly, another serious distortion was the identification of the community with the
tribe and hence all migrants who did not belong to the particular tribe were viewed as strangers and had
no traditional right to access land (ibid). These distortions were however contrary to practices that
prevailed in the pre-colonial African societies. Instead status and wealth accrued to those who could
attract dependents or followers, and strangers were welcomed (see also Mamdani, 1996). This would then
lead to social relationships developing (e.g. marriage, settlers etc) contributing to the prestige and often
the labour force of heads of household, kin group multi-ethnic communities whereby customary land
tenure systems housed a livelihoods framework supporting rural populations (Ibid).
The current land tenure complexities are based upon administrative and resource rights systems imposed
during the colonial period, and confounded by the emergence of rural markets as well as the
commoditisation of natural resources. Colonialism in Africa defined land as a communal and customary
possession (Mamdani, 1996), and thus customary tenure was related to both personal relations (marriage,
succession, movement) and access to productive resources (land). But colonial custom was not voluntary
or socially sanctioned but was enforced by colonial governments in order to tighten the control of the
54
colonial state on the natives, through what Mamdani (1996) calls containerisation of the subject
population.
Since indigenous black populations were seen as ignorant of land ownership concepts, the colonial state
alienated land to white settlers on the basis of freehold tenure and thereby gave virtual absolute ownership
to them with the greatest bundle of rights (Ibid). The expropriated population was then settled on the
worst lands and governed by administrative discretion while land rights were held in trust by a state body
justified by colonial paternalist ideology (Ibid). Customary laws as modified by the colonial state
governed relations among the indigenous communities themselves. Thus at independence most African
countries inherited a dual, unequal and hierarchical system of land tenure in which freehold and leasehold
land-rights were treated as superior forms of land rights over customary land rights (Shivji et al., 1998;
Moyo, 1998). This remains a dilemma that most land tenure reform initiatives face.
Contrary to indigenous tradition, since colonial times Africans living in areas under ‘customary systems’
or forms of land tenure have tended to occupy lands by the permission of the state, which was the ultimate
owner or the holder of radical title (Shivji, Ibid). Their occupation and use of land was controlled by
criminal law and sanctions while they had no legally entrenched rights, in contrast to the state as an owner
and those holding land under received law. Among themselves, they were allowed to continue to relate to
each other under the customary law that also governed their land relations and tenure but, whenever the
state so desired, the permission to occupy and use land could be withdrawn by administrative fiat
(including forced removals) and African lands appropriated without resort to law. Thus customary law
tenure was insecure and fragile, and was presented and perceived as such. Within weak and fragile
customary land rights there were further inequalities and inequities. Constructed in the shadow of colonial
power structures and struggles, the real practices of customary law perverted its supposed original content
based on harmonious and fairly homogenous communities.
In reality, the ‘community’ is differentiated along class, other social and gender lines and reproduces
unequal and inequitable access to and use of land, most particularly for women. The imposed ownership
and inheritance rules discriminated against women and weaker ethnic minorities. Furthermore, in most
countries, customary lands are essentially state land, managed on behalf of clans and cannot be transferred
through the market system.
In post independence Tanzania the land laws were inherited from colonial governments reinforced the
perception that all lands not occupied under granted rights of occupancy (right to use and occupy land for
55
a specified period up to 99 years) were ‘public lands’ at the disposal of the President (Shivji, 1998).
Customary occupiers occupy such land not as a matter of legal right, but at the discretion of the President
(Ibid). Outside of freehold systems, access to land in Africa varies between men and women (including
the social classifications of women, e.g. married and unmarried women) and also overlap, a situation that
often leads to the development of conflicts over the land and other natural resources attracted to the lands.
The discriminatory role of customary tenure along social and gender lines is a direct product of colonial
manipulation, given the distortions of custom that came with conquest (Ibid).
The myths regarding the effects of insecurity in communal systems of tenure were extended to them being
the basic cause of land degradation and justification of private or state land ownership. However the
boundaries designed for the native reserves made it impossible for people to acquire land rights elsewhere
and by ‘halting migrations into frontier lands’ pressure was added to the land carrying capacity which the
‘uncolonised’ African customary tenure practice of out-migration had easily addressed whenever there
was a population increase or shortage of land’ (Okoth-Ogendo, 1996). Moreover state or private owned
lands are just as degraded of their natural resources.
The current vogue of establishing similar land committees and assemblies in African land tenure reform
policy exercises faces the danger of creating essentially statutory bodies, perceived as extension of the
state, which retain the main source of land tenure insecurity: state land expropriation (Shivji, 1996). By
granting land titles to these quasi-state institutions direct land expropriation by the state is effected and
existing customary tenure abolished and replaced by statutory tenure (Ibid). These land tenure reforms
also gave rise to the problem of dealing with existing deemed rights of the villagers to village lands before
village titling was implemented. Establishing this system was at any rate too costly as it involved the
processes of land conflicts adjudication, establishing cadastral surveys, and formal land demarcations,
providing numerous technical contracts, and the titling and registration of titles (Ibid).
Changes in land tenure in the transition to a market economy and imposed land tenure reforms, modify
the concept of property from control of wealth based upon social, cultural, and use values (e.g. to provide
food and shelter) to the ownership of material and marketable goods. As a consequence customary
societies find it more difficult to enforce their rules and practices of allocating community resources such
as land, based on the need to provide resources to community households for their welfare and
sustenance. Thus customary norms and practices adapt to these changes, often at the cost of those groups,
56
such as women and minority ethnic groups, who are considered secondary members of the community.
(Lastarria,-Cornhiel, 2002).
What is customary, what is tradition, and what are society’s values and norms are of course always
changing and customary norms are selectively practiced to benefit those who are in authority or who are
powerful (Ibid). The overlapping rights over a particular land parcel that exist under customary tenure
become extinguished and the main primary holder of rights increases his prerogatives at the expense of
secondary rights holders (Ibid). It would appear that some market-economy values and practices are more
readily adopted than others, and often the greatest resistance is the recognition of social equity,
particularly gender equity (Ibid). For example, the family head may adopt the practice that family land
under his control is his individual private property but still hold the cultural norm that women are of lower
status and therefore do not own land (Lastarria,-Cornhiel, 2002).
Two significant political economic processes confound this land tenurial complexity: namely, increased
population density and commercial agriculture. These processes result in land scarcity and competition for
land, and in increasing levels of individualization of land rights. When land is not a scarce resource, longterm rights to a particular parcel of land are neither rational nor necessary (Ibid). Land scarcity reduces
the prospects for land rotation while the community has less land to allocate to newly formed households.
Nomadic pastoralism and transhumance have become the most constrained in this way in East and West
Africa. Therefore, the trend of family control enforces more sedentary and intensive agricultural and
livestock grazing practices. Thus, land becomes valuable and families identify with and seek long-term
control rights over specific land parcels (Ibid).
The African land tenure systems have as a result been confronted by the combination of demographic
pressures and related land scarcity, with artificially created land scarcities arising from the expropriation
of customary lands by the state and elites seeking to expand commercial farming and to impose land
market regimes.
But these land tenurial and distributional depravations have yet to be fully incorporated in current
democracy and governance discourses. Land rights have not quite been perceived as being embedded
within the broad spectrum of human rights and/or social rights, such as rights to food and to existence
(Moyo, 2001). In Africa such rights are to be sought from access to or control of land as the foremost
means of social and economic reproduction. Rural livelihoods are dependent on having a secure place to
57
live, free from threat of eviction and with access to productive land and natural resources. Land tenure
reforms which do not guarantee such basic living conditions are not only meaningless but confound
Africa’s land question, as seen in land conflicts in various African localities among various social groups.
A major dimension of these land problems lies in the gender relations of both land tenure and land
distribution. This process shapes the contestations over land tenure reforms, land privatisation and
evolution of land markets.
In customary land tenure individual rights to land are derived from their relations with other persons in
the household and community, as these in turn are determined and shaped by societal institutions (Ibid).
From an institutionalist perspective, land tenure consists of land rights and the institutions that determine,
administer, regulate, and enforce those rights. Within that perspective, as important as determining to
whom land belongs, is determining who has what specific rights to a given piece of land, particularly the
rights of allocation, use, transfer, and reversion (Ibid).
Generically in customary tenure regimes, the community chief or lineage head is considered the ultimate
custodian of community land, but all households belonging to the community have recognised rights to
this land and other natural resources. The degree of control and management that community leaders have
over land and resources, and therefore the control that individuals hold, varies considerably across
customary systems (Ibid). Rights for individuals and families vary from discrete temporary uses such as
gathering natural resources in communal forest, grazing on communal pastures, cultivating a specific field
for one or several seasons to permanent control over a piece of land or other resource for cultivation and
to pass it on to their heirs (Lastarria,-Cornhiel, 2002).
In West Africa, unlike other regions, existing land problems have less to do with past land expropriation
by settlers than with the insecurity of tenure and the effect this has on the effective exploitation of land
(Toulmin and Longbottom, 1997). Under customary law, traditional leaders (chiefs) remain the dominant
and de facto land owners. It is through them that community members obtain access to land resources
held by them in trust but, once allocated, the land comes under the control of the family in most cases.
Whether people would also say that the chief owns the land is questionable. When most West African
countries inherited distorted tenure laws from colonial governments, the state assumed greater powers of
land ownership at independence, granting itself rights over land sales and leasing. Consequently
customary land tenure practices have been weakened, and are no longer adequately recognised by either
the state or rural communities (DFID, 1999). Reconciliation of differences in land tenure policies,
58
compounded by the influence of Islamic laws have generally led to more confusion and conflicts between
land users (Toulmin and Longbottom, 1997). Migration from northern West Africa to coastal areas has
led to a generation of major land tenure conflicts as discussed earlier.
Indigenous land tenure systems are said to be dynamic in nature and to evolve in response to changes in
factor prices (Kiamba, 1985, Migot-Adholla et al., 1991). It is argued that there is a spontaneous
individualisation of land rights over time which allows families to acquire a broader and more powerful
set of transfer and exclusion rights over their land as population pressure and agricultural
commercialisation proceeds. Migot-Adholla et al. (1991) and colleagues, citing empirical evidence from
rainfed farming areas in sub-Saharan Africa (Ghana, Rwanda and Kenya), maintain that traditional
African tenure systems have been flexible and responsive to changing economic conditions. For instance,
where population pressure and commercialisation have increased, these systems have evolved from
communal rights to systems of individual rights.
The literature thus suggests that customary systems of tenure in Africa should be permitted to evolve or
‘adapt’ rather than be ‘replaced’ by freehold (or other western) systems (Bruce and Migot-Adholla, 1994).
Barrow and Roth (1990) advocate land privatisation and titling only under circumstances where tenure is
already evolving towards individualised holdings. This rationale, which advocates permitting dual
(private freehold/customary) tenure systems to continue to exist, is based on the need for land serve
different purposes under different circumstances, and is justified by invoking the flexibility of indigenous
livelihood strategies as having always been a means of survival in harsh physical and economic
environments.
3.2.3 Statutory and private land tenure systems: the evolution of land markets
In countries with predominant customary land tenure systems there is a tendency of high population
densities on land regarded as poor around largely mountainous areas and scarce arable land. In fact, in
Swaziland and Malawi, the struggle for equitable land ownership invokes the control by traditional
leaders over land allocation (Mashinini, 2000).
Private property of land in a market economy means private and individualized ownership: the owner is
the only person with rights to that land and has the right to exclude everyone from his/her property; even
members of his/her own family.
It appears that the concept of ownership of land, as opposed to
custodianship or user rights evolved out of the market economy system based on individualized private
59
property, while in customary tenure societies, the relationship between people and land is not generally
one of ownership but of use and stewardship. (Lastarria,-Cornhiel, 2002).
This process of individualization has also involved another change in the concept of land rights, primarily
a change in the number and types of rights a particular owner holds. The bundle of land rights in any
tenure regime consists of three types of rights: use rights, exclusion rights, and transfer rights (Ibid). As
individualization advances, the use rights may expand to include other commercial uses such as planting
productive perennials or extracting soils, and gravel for sale or other uses. Transfer rights regulate how
and to whom the landholder can transfer the land, including giving, inheritance (whether inter vivos or to
heirs), renting out, pledging, and selling land to others Ibid). Under customary tenure, transfer rights tend
to be limited to lineage and community members or the community itself, and do not entail commercial
transactions, although a symbolic “payment” may be made, since the ability to sell and mortgage land,
particularly to outsiders, is generally confined to market economy societies (Lastarria,-Cornhiel, 2002).
In reality African tenure reforms created various types of land markets to provide a framework for land
disposal between private persons (natural or corporate), without recourse to state bodies, except for
purposes of registration and notification of the transactions. Thus transactions in the land market are not
absolutely ‘free’ as the state administrative structures retain intermediatory functions through the land
registry, land administrative courts and other entities, which proscribe such land transactions. In land
redistribution programmes, different versions of the land markets have evolved through systems such as:
(i) ‘willing seller-willing buyer’, transfers in which there is no hindrance in land sales; (ii) ‘market
assisted’ land reforms, in which resources are mobilised from the state and donors for land acquisition and
settler placement; (iii) ‘market led’ land reforms, in which the ‘open market’ determines land transfers;
(iv) ‘state led’ market based approaches, in which the state, as the leading buyer of land on the open
market, finances for both acquisition and settler placement. However, land markets also vary depending
on the form of laws underlying the freehold concept (e.g. Roman-Dutch laws as opposed to English
common law) and in relation to various land regulatory processes, such as land taxation, land use
directives, rules regarding land sizes and environmental management controls.
Lumumba and Kanyinga (2003) observed more critically that the exercise of land tenure reforms of
‘individualising and titling land’, has led to a markedly skewed distribution of land. The chiefs, loyalists,
and the wealthy acquired more land than others while the lower social groups lost considerable amounts
of land especially if they did not or could not participate in the adjudication of their rights. Individualising
60
land, its titling and its incumbent conflict resolution processes have generated more conflicts than they
solve and, may have decreased people's tenure security (Ibid).
In the 1980s the government in Tanzania practiced the concept of village titling in order to encourage
investment in land through the perceived security conferred by individualisation. In this system villages
would be given titles of 99 years, and villagers’ subtitles ranging from 33 years to 99 years (Shivji, 1998).
This tenurial system was found to be fraught with ambiguities and was the direct cause of new land
conflicts, in spite of the expectation that newly formed institutions such as Village Councils, Land
Committees and Village Assemblies in which title to each village were to be vested, would resolve these.
In post independence Tanzania, therefore, the nationalisation of freehold lands as well as villagisation
gave birth to new problems of land conflicts and land tenure insecurity. Land was nationalised through the
1963 Freehold Titles (Conversion and Government Leases) Act, which converted all freehold titles,
totalling about 1 million acres, into 99-year government leaseholds (Bruce, 1986; Shivji et al., 1998). The
policy of ‘villagisation’ however was built around promoting communal production and initially relied on
voluntarism and persuasion but later became compulsory. This approach, totally disregarded the existing
customary land tenure systems, while the future land tenure requirements of the newly established
villages was also ignored (Shivji 1998). Villagisation, in effect, meant expropriation of customary rights
and the compulsory acquisition of land under customary rights using the colonial land law, inherited at
independence. The process reinforced the belief among politicians and bureaucrats that all lands not
occupied under granted rights of public occupancy were public lands at the disposal of the state. The
relocation of villages and the redrawing of boundaries gave rise to boundary problems that exist to the
present day, including extensive litigation cases meant to reclaim lost customary rights (Bruce, 1996,
Shivji, 1998).
As Shipton (1989) points out, individualization of land rights in African societies gives individual persons
more freedom (or greater exclusivity) to use and administer one’s land. Rights to that land by other
persons are denied. This process has been observed by Migot-Adholla et al. (1991) in Ghana, Kenya, and
Rwanda where communal rights to land in rain-fed cropping areas have evolved toward more
individualized rights in response to increased population pressure and commercial agriculture. Market
forces also increase the perception of land as a marketable good and the incidence of land transactions
between individuals (Ault and Rutman, 1979, Berry, 1988, Shipton, 1989, Bruce and Migot-Adholla,
1994).
61
The question of whether and how land markets determine investment in land, and through this affect
productivity and investment, including food security, remains contentious, in debates about land tenure
reforms. The combined pressures of population growth and increasing commercialisation of agriculture
tend to be seen as the drivers of tenurial change from ‘communal’ tenure systems to an individualised and
market based land tenure system (Bruce, 1986). For example, the commercialisation of agriculture that
started with colonisation, when commercial crops such as oil palm, cocoa, coffee, cotton, tobacco and
others were introduced, tends to be associated with the rise of individualised land tenure and a greater
incidence of land transactions (Berry, 1984; Bruce, 1986; Lawry, 1993; Platteau, 1992). Yet this imposed
individualisation of land rights through freehold tenure was mainly for exclusive allocation to settlers,
large multinational corporations (MNCs) and elites, indicating the spuriousness of these arguments given
the attendant biases in state policy and national resource allocations (finance, infrastructure, etc) to these
beneficiaries. However, changing rules of inheritance also tended to shift in support of this process.
Land tenure reforms have been a direct instrument of generating land conflicts through new forms of
exclusion, as we saw in Ivory Coast and Kenya. In Ivory Coast’s Rural Land Plan (RLP) pilot project
(from 1999-2000) it sought to map all existing rights in order to give them legal status. This triggered the
questioning of the land rights of long term immigrants, and led to ethnic divisions alongside the northsouth divide of ethnicity and religious difference.
Data from the RLP registration showed that the nature of land tenure arrangements was often unclear in
many areas, and in particular that they were not perceived in the same way by the indigenous people and
the migrants (Zalo, 2001). Given that official documents such as the land certificate and their legal
consequences were not adequately disseminated to people, there was uniformed renegotiation of
previously conceded land rights (Zalo, 2001). Since land is scarce and, is a limiting factor for socioeconomic development because the size of family agricultural plots are small, the roots of land conflict in
Ivory Coast can be more widespread than is understood, given that land distribution is uneven. There are
3,744 traditional large farms and 1,076 modern farms and a number of agro-industrial plantations (palmtree oil, hévéa, sugarcane and pineapple-banana plantations), but traditional owners of the land are not
beneficiaries of the exported products, and do not have access to various goods and services (Zalo, 2001).
Because in the customary system, the value of agricultural land is measured in terms of its development
and seldom according to its intrinsic value, (i.e. it is not an officially exchangeable good), land cannot be
offered as a guarantee to creditors for loans necessary for intensive development, and it is difficulty to
62
rent or sell land at good prices, poverty persists among most of the rural populations, in contrast to the
minority of “modern” farms (Ibid). Migrants have become the most insecure tenurially, alongside the
youth and women.
Apart from the former settler colonies in southern Africa, where expropriated land was converted into
private property, in racially discriminating land markets until independence, formal and informal land
markets have been growing in Africa. The increased incidence of land transfers through private purchases
tend to be associated with growing or high population pressures and expanded agricultural
commercialisation, as observed in a study of 16 localities in six different countries, namely Kenya,
Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Malawi and Zambia3 (Migot-Adholla et al., 1991; Place, 1995; Andre and
Platteau, 1995). Land purchases are considered to be stronger in East Africa than elsewhere (box 3-2).
Such land transactions are said to have a positive impact on the capacity of individual households to
mobilise food for their survival from year to year, although evidence also shows that land selling
households end up being co-opted into the labour markets and are unable to sustain their livelihoods
(Ibid).
Box 3-2:Examples of Land Markets in Eastern and West Africa
Place (1995) reported that 80% of households have purchased land in southwest Uganda. In the same area, the
percentage of plots acquired through purchase equals that from inheritance. Roth et al. (1994) found that
between 33% and 60% of land parcels were purchased in southwestern Uganda. Even higher figures are
observed in Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Somalia. Furthermore, Place found that 16-25% of land parcels
acquired were bought in three prefectures of Burundi. Also, purchases comprised 18-19% of the number of
parcels and total farm area in two regions of Kenya (Migot-Acholla et al., 1994). Roth et al. (1994) found that
smallholders purchased 31% of their parcels and had rented another 7% in the Stebe Valley in Somalia.
Pickney and Kimuyu (1994) found significant land sales among households in the northern Tanzania
highlands. The importance of purchasing increased over time in Rwanda, but not necessarily in Kenya.
However, there are hardly any sales in Ethiopia because of enforced government policy.
Also, complex, indefinite and fixed duration transfer of land (and tree) rights are commonplace in the humid
areas of Cameroon, Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Côte de I’voire, and Sierra Leone (Adesina and Chiany, 2002;
Kallan, 1996; Chauveau, 2000). The incidence of land market transations is highest in areas characterised by
immigration. Delville et al. (2002) report that about two-thirds of households in the oil palm delta of Ghana
had entered into share contracts, while renting was more common than borrowing between relatives in a
relatively sparsely populated area (less than 70 persons/km2 ) in north eastern Nigeria. Migot-Adholla et
al.(1994) observed that 18% of parcels were purchased in a cocoa growing area, while 41% were rented or
pledged in a very densely populated coastal area in eastern Ghana. Quisumbing et al. (2001) noted that the
proportion of land acquired through purchase from individuals was between 4 and 5% in Ghana, a proportion
that is growing with time, while the area acquired through rental markets is as much as 18.8% among migrant
villagers. Generally land markets are limited in the drier Sahelian countries (e.g. Matlan, 1994 for Burkina
Faso; Golan, 1994 for Senegal.)
Source: Place (2002)
3
In this study, it was observed that, in the 16 areas under study in the six different countries, the percent of parcels acquired through the market ranged from 045%. Platteau (1996) also mentions that a study conducted by the World Bank in a sample of ten regions in Ghana, Kenya and Rwanda, the proportion of
operated parcels acquired through purchases ranged from less than 1% to nearly 30%. In the highly populated area of Gisenyi in Rwanda, Kanama commune,
with a population density of 566 inhabitants per km2 and a population growth rate of 4% p.a, Andre (1989) estimated that 23% of the operated parcels have
been acquired through purchase.
63
But individualisation of property rights and the evolution of land markets in customary lands, tends to be
considered a ‘natural’ phenomenon in Africa, by some scholars. In one example, Migot-Adholla et al.,
(1991) notes that, by 1930 in Machakos (Kenya), customary tenure already recognised private rights,
particularly to cultivated land, which could be sold, inherited or loaned. However, they concluded that
there is a very weak relationship between individualisation of land rights and agricultural yields in the
regions they studied in Ghana, Rwanda and Kenya. According to them, indigenous tenure institutions,
particularly their land rights, do not appear to constrain agricultural productivity, since it is likely that
farmers feel sufficiently secure in their ability to continuously cultivate their land, regardless of the land
rights category.
The mode of transactions in land that take place in Africa can best be described as involving both market
and non-market transfers. Non-market transactions mostly refer to the transfer of land rights through
processes such as gifts, borrowing and the inter-generational mechanism of inheritance. Generally nonmarket transactions relate to transfer of land rights in customary tenure systems, and increasingly the
evidence shows a steady development of informal land markets in that sector (Moyo, 2000; Place, 2002).
This is interpreted to mean that non-market transactions have increased the flexibility of customary
systems to cope with population pressure, commercialisation of agriculture and other driving forces
(Place, 2002).
The main reason why the emergence of land market mechanisms in Africa has been considered desirable,
is their assumed ability to enhance the search by both buyers and sellers for willing land transactors,
including land rentals that involve an exchange of land rights mainly on a spot basis. These mechanisms
are not always considered to require formalised arrangements, such as documentation or written contracts,
since informal agreements, using indigenous forms of verification or evidence, are considered to work.
There are a host of such land purchases and rentals that obtain in Africa, even where transfers of land
rights involve non-family or un-related individuals. Limited duration arrangements include fixed rentals,
sharecropping arrangements, pledges, accessing rights over perennial crops without the land, and the use
of numerous forms of payment or compensation. Similarly, land sales do not always involve a one-time
exchange of cash for complete land rights. Tenancies may evolve into purchases among migrants. Land
sales may involve an indefinite transfer of a certain bundle of rights, and compensation may be in the
form of in-kind gifts rather than cash. However developing formal land markets tends in Africa to have
been accompanied by land registration initiatives, especially during the colonial period.
64
Land markets developed under customary tenure exhibit particular tendencies. In Tanzania, land sales in
the Sukuma area were identified in the late 1800s (Malcolm, 1953). Feder and Noronha (1987) reported
that in Sokoto, Nigeria, land market transactions accounted for 30% of landholdings (Lunning, 1965).
Other examples of land markets include the commonality of sales around the Nuba area of Sudan (Roden,
1971) and land rental markets in the cocoa areas of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire (Hill, 1963). Furthermore,
Barrows and Roth (1990) cited Mukwaya (1953) reporting that 58% of landholders in the Buganda region
of central Uganda had purchased land. (see also box 3-3).
Box 3-3:
Land Sales in Central Côte d’Ivoire
Sales of land according to customary procedures have always taken place, irrespective of their lack of legal recognition.
Generally, sales have evolved from the former practice of giving or loaning land. Conflicts in relation to access to land and
its control have also been on the increase. For example, younger men are known for contesting the validity of transactions
carried out by their elders and demanding that these agreements be revoked. This has led to the loss of authority amongst
chiefs de terre and elders, who are now perceived as having profited personally from land sales and rentals at the expense of
family inheritance. Thus the youth are challenging the legitimacy of past transactions, especially upon the death of one of the
transacting parties. In other situations, there is now a ban imposed by local people on all sales and rental of land to strangers.
Political debate and the 1998 rural land law, which does not allow non-Ivorians to own land, have greatly influenced the
current land claims debate. As such, indigenous inhabitants are demanding that land formerly sold be considered a rental or
loan, which can be called back to the landowner when needed and that it not be inheritable by the children of the migrant
farmer. Land transactions have given rise to various forms of conflict, including trespassing beyond the boundaries agreed
for a field, selling a plot to two different people, or selling a plot which is not one’s property, settling or farming without
owner’s permission etc. To alleviate such conflicts, paper records of such land transactions evolved from 1970 onwards.
People seek, where possible, to record the existence and nature of a transaction, that an agreement has been entered into and
their rights to the land. In most cases, the process involves personally measuring and mapping the plot. However, this does
not constitute a legal title to land.
Source: Summarised from Delville et al., 2002
However the deliberate disposal of assets, including land, is a survival strategy which poor Africans
have been forced to adopt in hard times. Land tenure systems which permit outright alienation of land,
can result in the permanent loss of livelihoods among the distressed poor, where the sale of land is usually
at prices below the market value, to the benefit of wealthier members of community (Watts, 1983;
Mamdani, 1986). Basu (1996) notes that, even in contexts where land can be sold, land markets are often
inactive except for distress sales, meaning that land losses maybe irreversible. Carter and Wiebe (1990)
note that, even under circumstances less severe than famine, poorly endowed, food-insecure households,
irrespective of output per unit of land, may be forced to invest more in ‘self insurance’ (such as
maintenance of substantial food reserves or allocation of land to low risk, low return crops such as
cassava) rather than investing in the productivity of their agricultural holdings or purchasing land via an
active land market.
65
3.2.4 Concluding comment: land tenure, land productivity and agrarian transition
The above discussed land tenure systems and the contradictory efforts to reform them suggests that the
promotion of private land property rights has been a dominant concern of the African state and
international finance capital, even though the emergence of land markets has not been as generalized as
these agents desired. The general conclusion that can be derived here is that land tenure reforms have
tended to be motivated by and directed at promoting or protecting the landed interests of domestic elites
and foreign capitalists for expanded access to land for agriculture and natural resource extraction. The
details of such state land policy reformist strategies, including both redistributive and tenure reform
strategies, as well as the social pressures for popular land reform, are discussed further in chapters 5.0 and
6.0.
Land tenure reforms have tended to reinforce the land concentration and exclusion processes discussed in
section 3.1, using policy mechanisms which justify, open and protect access to land by urban based elites,
state enterprises and infrastructures, and foreign ‘investors’. New forms of state led land leasing and
concessioning, freehold land markets creation and the adoption of customary tenures drove this
concentration process. This is what we have called land concentration from ‘above’. This process of land
concentration escalated since the 1980s alongside the neo-liberalisation of African economies under
structural adjustment.
Land tenure reforms have also served to formalize, increase and protect land concentration from ‘below’,
in a more longer term process of the growth of petty commodity production. This entails widespread but
not comprehensive situations in which local rural agrarian capitalists have emerged local and acquired
larger than average tracts of land, based on internal social differentiation processes, which include
resource accumulation from land ‘grabbing’, various state resources, the accumulation of petty
agricultural savings, wages and remittances, and other non-farm sources. Local land concentration also
entails situations in which traditional leaders, elders and primary indigenous settlers have hoarded larger
land parcels of better quality. Here, state land tenure reforms have tended to formally recognize
discriminatory customary tenure rules or to condone their persistent abuse by local elites and local state
functionaries, as well introduce statutory tenures for the benefit of these elites. Both customary and
statutory tenures have in this way been used to promote land concentration and exclusion in general.
These land tenure and land distributional changes have tended to marginalize the land rights of the rural
poor and their capacities to reproduce themselves are increasingly undermined. Yet the evidence on the
66
extent to which land privatization and land concentration have promoted improved land productivity and
agricultural investment, suggests that land individualization and land markets do not perform better than
customary tenures in this regard. The general trend is that land productivity and agricultural investment in
agriculture in Africa remains stunted, as is encapsulated by sustained rural poverty, food insecurity and
limited technological transformation of African agriculture.
The roots of this stalled agrarian transition need to be further examined, beyond the constraints that are
imposed by the property rights, distributional and tenure issues discussed so far. We need also to examine
how the wider African economic, agricultural and land use policies, are grounded in development
strategies, which have distorted land use and agrarian development, and how these problems of land use
constitute a critical aspect of Africa’s land question in its own right.
3.3 Agrarian ‘transition’ in Africa: land use patterns and distorted growth
3.3.1 Agrarian capitalism, landed property rights and land use trajectories
The reform of African land tenure systems and the scattered emergence of land markets, reflect wider
development process particularly the slow growth of agrarian capitalism, as opposed to the widespread
growth of technological backward agricultural petty commodity production and the sustained extroversion
of agricultural land uses, in a context of semi-proletarianisation derived from stalled industrial and
employment growth. The failed agrarian transition of Africa, whereby agricultural transformation and
capital accumulation, have remained restricted, reflects both the narrow spread of agrarian capitalism as
well as relegation of the majority of the African populations to dependence on petty agricultural
production for their survival. Conflicts over land rights thus reflect a structural problem of
maldevelopment as well as the contradictions of the evolving land tenure systems, including the
emergence of unequal access to land and tenure insecurities, and ineffective land use policies.
Mkandawire (2002) points out that, during the last two decades, there has been acceleration in the process
of commodification of land by African states and of a class of emerging agrarian capitalists interested in
the productive and speculative use of land since independence. Two factors account for the ease and
speed with which this process is taking place today, compared to the colonial era. One has been the
exploitation by these emergent capitalists of the usufruct rights they enjoyed in their traditional
communities, especially the right to cultivate as much as one wanted of the available land4. The presence
4
Some of the emergent capitalist farmers were responsible for renting land in the communal areas because such land was ‘relatively free’ for
their own projects. Therefore, there is a wide variation of land sizes and ownership regimes in the customary systems.
67
of these, usually male, large farmers was not seen as alienation of land by foreigners but as a productive
use of land by indigenous people dedicated to bringing ‘development’ to their own village. The extent to
which this process has led to increased land productivity and beneficial land uses is as questionable.
This process of land concentration and agrarian accumulation, both from ‘above’ and ‘below’, has not
needed to entail the transfer of land into formalised individualised property rights, but the manipulation of
indigenous land usufruct rights by emergent capitalists using non-traditional processes of land acquisition
and protection of newly found land rights. There is, for instance, widespread use of access to the state
bureaucratic apparatus to purchase ‘certificates of land occupancy’, as well as the circumvention of both
traditional forms of land allocation and the stated objective of new land tenure laws, which is to vest the
trusteeship of all land in the state, to ensure its productive use, to maintain equitable access and to protect
the poor. Thus land alienation and/or individualisation have accompanied expansion of capitalist
agriculture, not necessarily because of the pressures of population growth, agricultural intensification and
agrarian differentiation from below, but because of the imposition of the modernising tenets of statutory
land tenure, to selectively support emergent agrarian capitalists and natural resource extraction and tourist
capitalist enterprises.
The process of land commodification and concentration therefore has been facilitated by the repeal or
circumvention of traditional land tenure systems by African governments, without them necessarily
adopting freehold tenure systems. In many cases the governments have ‘nationalised’ land both from
large foreign capitalist landholders and from small-scale communal owners, and used the newly found
government the right to lease or even sell land to both domestic and new foreign agrarian capitalists5.
African governments uses their moral edge over colonialists, based both on ‘nationalist’ and
‘developmentalist’ ideologies, to justify the state’s national control of land and natural resources for the
‘public good or interest’, as opposed to the interests of narrow ethnic or social groups. In addition, the
neoliberal ideological stance, underlying Africa structural adjustment policies, which promote capitalist
agriculture, encourages the ‘freeing’ of land from traditional ties, so that the ‘open market’ allocates land
to purportedly6 more efficient land users.
Neoclassical and institutional theorists (Platteau, 1996; Berry, 1993; North, 1990; Ostrom, 1990) have
argued in this context that land markets should be encouraged to evolve naturally on the grounds that an
5
. See Shepperd, 1981. This is because in irrigation schemes governments have a moral claim to the reclaimed land.
. The ‘open market’ for land is not always open. Thus Sheppard observes that, in Ghana, a monopolistic and largely covert market in rice land emerged,
whereby chiefs would sell land-use rights either for undefined periods or, in cases where opposition to strangers appropriating land has been articulated, for a
defined period of three to five years after which land rights revert back to the community (Shepperd, 1981).
6
68
incipient land market exists in Africa, rather than them being suppress by the post-independence state.
They argue that land markets would not impoverish many since it is the most inefficient farmers, who are
forced out of agriculture by an active land market, and that these would at any rate be incorporated into
the money economy. However, as we saw earlier in most instances, it is the poorest, the least endowed,
and therefore the most food-insecure farmers who tend to be forced to sell their land in bad times.
Displacing such farmers may not be efficient, moreover, since land concentration among agrarian
capitalists can be ‘inefficient’, given that the relationship between farm size and productivity indicates
that small farmers tend to be more efficient in terms of output per unit of inputs and total factor
productivity (Weiner, et al., 1985; Binswanger, 1993; Roth, 1990; Von Blackenburg, 1994). Secondly, the
labour market outside agriculture is based upon below subsistence incomes (Arrighi, 1973) and is
unreliable, given its many risks, including retrenchments and redundancy. The evidence suggests that the
rural poor seek non-farm jobs alongside their petty farming activities, because the wage (even adjusted for
the probability of finding a job), while greater than in that of peasant agricultural labour in some
circumstances, is not adequate for the total social reproduction of most households.
Initially the multilateral institutions, in their quest to provide a cure for Africa’s agrarian crisis, considered
the commodification of land to be an important ingredient in its adjustment programmes, and invested
heavily in land tenure reform. Many African governments, aware of the potential political dangers of
massive land alienation through titling, acted cautiously (Moyo, 2000; Mkandawire, 2002), but often
devised ways of circumventing some of the traditional constraints on the commodification of land. But
the World Bank tended to view this as either unnecessary prevarication or evidence of statism (World
Bank, 1995). This perspective has since been abandoned by most development agencies in favour of the
thesis of evolutionary land markets, operating in tandem with the growth of other factor markets.
Two assumptions underlie the expectations that an evolution towards land markets will occur. One is that
evolving factor endowments must not only lead to changes in property rights but must also induce
technical change resulting in ‘autonomous intensification’ and, therefore, better performance in African
agriculture. The second is that this process would produce the best possible property relations in terms of
the efficient allocation of land rights, without causing social conflict over distributional issues. Yet,
nowhere in the history of agrarian capitalism and the agrarian ‘transition’, has ‘modernised’, and
technologically advanced capitalist farming emerged without extensive state subsidies or support to
farmers for the acquisition of land, technology and other inputs, as well as the protection of agricultural
markets and related industries. The opposite of this was proposed by structural adjustment programmes
69
(SAPs) in Africa, and the result has been a failed agrarian transition characterised by increased food
imports and aid dependence, and the persistence of the export of primary goods at secularly declining
terms of trade (see also Patniak, 1999; Sen, 2004).
Recent tendencies to subsidise agriculture in the USA and EU through agricultural and trade subsidies
emphasises how it is state intervention and not natural evolution which defines the trajectory of agrarian
capitalism, both in the terms of land markets it sustains and the direction of agricultural ‘development’,
through land use patterns that policies promote. The SAP approach to the liberal development of agrarian
markets in Africa was, in a sense, a double jeopardy which led both to the failure to develop agrarian
capitalists (Mkandawire, 2002) and the demise of the peasantry. This experience is reminiscent of the
colonial governments promotion of technologically backward peasant dominated agriculture in much of
‘non-settler’ Africa (Ibid), and the institutionalised promotion of a narrow and racially discriminatory
agrarian capitalism, while destroying the peasantry in settler Africa.
The alternative project of developing mass based agricultural production, using small farmers, continues
to be considered a pipe dream by neo-Stalinists and pro-large farmer theorists, such as Sender and
Johnston (2004), using recent evidence from redistributive land reform in South Africa. In the context of
the self-fulling ‘successes’ of large white farmers in Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa, where land
redistribution and agricultural policies have systematically undermined the peasantry, it might be too early
to write-off small farmers in Africa’s development project. Nor does it help the debate to label in negative
authority, the search for land and agrarian reform based on small peasants and semi-proletarians, as
‘peasantist’, as does Bernstein (2004), who also wrongly argues that under contemporary ‘globalisation
we are witnessing changes which predict the “end of land reform”. The theoretical conceptualisation by
Bernstein (Ibid) which argues that there is a resolution of the ‘agrarian question of capital’ in the ‘north’,
while admitting the existence of an ‘agrarian question of labour’ in the ‘south’, is in fact unsound, because
it assumes falsely the separation of capital from labour, and the north from south in an agrarian question
which is actually global, but unequally dominated by capital, trade regulation and subsidies in the north.
That perspective also fails to appreciate the actually existing African land and agrarian questions that are
tied to exploitative trade and financial relations with the north as this volume shows. Most critical is the
way development and land policies SAP lending have undermined the agrarian transition in Africa, while
retaining perverse commodity exports based on unequal land and wider resources distributions, as we
argue below.
70
3.3.2 Extroverted land use policies and discriminatory land use regulations
A long standing land question, which has confronted the African continent since colonial and postindependence times, and in the last two and half decades of imposed neo-liberal orthodoxy, is the manner
in which development policies, including macro-economic, incentives and public allocations, agricultural
incentives and public allocations and land use regulations have directed the use of land in ways, which are
not beneficial for national development and which favour distorted accumulation by a small elite and
foreign capital. The productive purposes of land use, including the types of commodities produced and
their trade and domestic benefits, and the levels of productivity promoted by these policies, has tended to
remain extroverted.
Low levels of land use intensities, because of the poor adoption of land and labour productivity
enhancing technologies, (including various inputs – seeds, fertilizers, water and machinery) and low
agricultural wages are key features of current land use patterns. The ‘profitability’ of farming has tended
to be poor because of negative policies such as ineffective agricultural input and output market regulation
and pricing systems, the low levels of state subsidies to agricultural land uses which target the domestic
market needs, and the perpetuation of agricultural trade patterns which are based upon commodities
which continue to face declining terms of trade, while permitting the dumping of cheap agricultural
commodities derived from the ‘north’, given their subsidy and trade protection systems.
Together these policies have contributed to the decline of African agriculture by reducing the levels of
private agrarian capital accumulation and state revenues from agricultural growth, and in this way they
restrict the scope for internally generated agricultural finance and credit, investments and subsidies. These
development policies perpetuate “backward” agricultural techniques, restrict the accumulation of agrarian
surplus, limit food security, and enhance the disarticulation of its predominantly external oriented and
non-industrial economies. Moreover, in a very direct way, low land use intensities and low income and
consumption returns to land use per hectare, as well as the poor quality of and returns to labour applied,
exacerbate the scarcity of available productive lands by maintaining extensive or land consuming, land
use practises. The African land use problem is also related to poor land productivity, derived from the
effects that unequal land distribution and discriminatory land tenure policies bring to the productive use of
land by these increasingly marginalised food insecure poor people. Thus African land use policies,
including economic and agricultural policy incentives, and land use regulation, reinforce not only the
distorted agrarian transition and inefficient land uses, but also unequal land distribution and
discriminatory land tenure patterns.
71
Land use policies currently under-value land, largely by allocating land and related resources to
commodities with poor returns and domestic linkages. This reflects the external co-optation of the policies
of the neo-colonial or neo-liberal African state, which has led to the demise of African agriculture in
general, expanded food insecurity and, food import and aid dependence, and the inability of agriculture to
accumulate investible resources and finance itself, without resorting to external debt entrapment. This
pattern has tended to reinforce the failure of African agricultural to transform its technological basis,
hence the failed agrarian transition and agro-industrial growth. State resource allocations (credit,
infrastructure, water, export supports, etc.) and land use regulations (where to produce certain
commodities, environmental controls, etc.), within this distorted agricultural development model and
extroverted land use direction, have also tended to discriminate against the poor and the weak.
The trend towards expanding land use patterns for exports have led, not only to the loss of local
livelihoods (pastoralism and peasant cropping systems) but also to increased conflicts over the control of
land and gradual processes of land alienation. Thus, the aforemented processes of land concentration and
the marginalisation of the land rights of poor peasants have been reinforced by export land use
conversions and a growing competition for local resources (labour and natural resources), which favours a
stunted agrarian and rural bourgeoisie, comprising of a hybrid “elites”. Various examples of these new
export land use trends and their effects can be observed in various African countries.
One controversial trend emanating from SAP liberalisation land use policies is the conversion of farming
land to exclusively wildlife and nature based land uses through the consolidation of large scale farms into
even larger scale "conservancies". These land uses are justified as being the most environmentally,
socially and economically sustainable management of land and natural resources in fragile areas. But
these conservancies add to the previous exclusion of peasantries from substantial lands by the state in the
name of attracting national, regional and international capital in the tourism, forestry and biotechnology
sectors. They remove the visibility of the human face of individual land ownership from the struggles
over land and shift these to abstract legal entities of ubiquitous domicile, justified through putatively
benign environmental theologies (Moyo, 2000). Thus the socio-economic face of rural differentiation
through large scale land ownership and use for external markets is transformed into remote public and
private shareholding structures, which extol modern common property management regimes and decry
‘traditional’ communal tenures.
72
In southern and eastern Africa these environmental land use shifts are widespread but highly contested.
Land use conflicts and policy debates uphold a moral and socio-economic value in which allocating prime
land to wildlife and tourism uses is considered to be of greater utility than the land use utility of the
majority of human beings (small farmers), vis-à-vis the few individual large farmers and the animals
themselves! The general tendency therefore is to exclude the peasantry from vast tracts of land and natural
resources, based upon the argument that such lands are too marginal for intensive crop and livestock
farming and that they should be left to natural uses such as wildlife (Moyo, 2000).
Tourism, environmentalism and related markets have thus created a new land frontier in African states in
which various "stakeholders" at the local, district, provincial, national and international level, involving
private, state, NGO and community actors are engaged in land struggles for the exploration and
preservation of new forms of biodiversity and methods of their economic and social exploitation (Moyo,
2000).
Policies and regulations which directly and indirectly orient land use towards minority elite and external
markets have thus become a major site of contestation in the currently existing and evolving land
questions facing African states. This preferential allocation of state resources to land uses aimed at the
reproduction of nature in state lands, and in parks and forests, emphasises their short term commercial and
macro-economic value to the state, elites and foreign capital, rather than their interest in rural poverty
reduction.
The ‘commercialisation’ of African agriculture has for long tended to be driven by land use policies
which focus on export production and land tenure reforms aimed at the individualisation of land rights
(Boserup, 1981; Barrows and Roth, 1990). Eicher and Baker (1982) identify negative links between
commercialisation of agriculture and, food consumption and nutritional status, suggesting that an increase
in cash income accompanies a decline in subsistence food at the household level and hence increases
market vulnerability and food insecurity. Von Braun and Kennedy (1994) refute these relationships
suggesting that the integration of smallholder agriculture into the exchange economy is necessary for
successful development, since the developing world cannot afford the presumed inefficiencies of resource
allocation (especially of human and land resources) that subsistence agriculture entails. They argue that,
while there is some variation among specific crops that are commercially produced in Africa, increased
production, employment, income, food consumption, and nutrition are all associated with the
commercialisation of agriculture.
73
However von Braun and Kennedy (1994) concur with other studies (Weibe, 1992) that suggest that, when
markets function poorly, concerns for food security remain a strong rationale for some amount of
subsistence production and hence may be responsible for misallocation of land and other resources. They
recommend that the commercialisation of agriculture, through specialisation toward comparative
advantage at the farm or household level, should be supported and that land policy, particularly land
tenure, is one of the critical elements of support to agricultural commercialisation, provided that the
tenure systems grant land rights to women. The World Bank, supporting the above arguments, had
advocated combining commercialised agricultural production with the liberalisation of markets, and the
privatisation of land rights as the three primary pillars of its agricultural development policies in the
1990s (World Bank, 1993, 1994).
Bouis and Haddad (1990) note however that, under certain circumstances, the introduction of cash
cropping has increased landlessness through the expansion of land under commercial production and the
incorporation of the landless into agrarian labour. This has contributed to the crisis of livelihoods
generated by increasing destitute rural populations, in a context in which there is concentration of land
ownership among the wealthy. Poor people respond to this inequity through social and political
organisation to pressure the state to provide access to land and, in some instances, demanding
development programmes which are masked as social security: such as provision of school fees, health
assistance and care for the elderly and orphans. However, such intervention strategies are not enough to
overcome destitution, as the resources provided are often inadequate. For instance, communities still
devise their own livelihood strategies through the intensification of land-use, diversification of their
income portfolios and from other remunerative activities, such as the commodification of natural
resources, petty trading, small-scale mining of rare minerals, etc. Some respond through greater
exploitation of remaining common property resources through cultivation in vleis and grazing areas, and
the invasion of forest and park lands to turn these into arable land.
Land use policies focused on commercialising agricultural production have tended to drive land tenure
policy reforms. Maxwell and Wiebe (1998) give an example from the Kenyan land reform, which sought
to introduce private and individualised land property, so as to consolidate land holdings, in order to
promote economies of scale in land use and agricultural investment and to develop ‘commercial farming’,
as well as to reverse the fragmentation of holdings that had developed because of inheritance rules and
heavy population pressure. The fragmentation of these holdings had been developed as a risk-minimising
strategy of diversifying the micro-environments in which a single family farmed (ibid), not as a symptom
74
of non-commercial farming. The de jure consolidation of holdings thus undercut this environmentally
sound land use diversification strategy. Nonetheless the farming of fragmented and dispersed fields
continued despite the land tenure reform, because, farms in the hilly areas were formed in strips running
from a ridge to a valley and, allowed farmers to retain their desired topographical and land use diversity.
Most land tenure reform policies, in which land holding consolidation and individual titling are the target,
are based on the assumption that commercialising agriculture requires land use specialisation rather than
diversification, for growth to occur. These policies also assume that equity considerations may not be a
problem, given the presumed abundance of agricultural land in most African countries. Maxwell (1995)
notes that the growth in subsistence agricultural production in urban and peri-urban areas in Uganda for
example is largely a strategy used by low income earning women to protect food security for their
households in circumstances where decades of hyperinflation have rendered wage incomes, even of the
middle class, totally inadequate to provide for basic needs. However, much of this agricultural production
is on land under-utilised by its ‘true owners’, and the land that is informally or illegally accessed by the
cultivators who have little de jure security of tenure. Under these circumstances, a proposed land tenure
reform advocated by international donors, aimed at privatising and formalising land ownership, would
have the effect of strengthening the property rights of a small, food-secure elite, but would have a
negative effect on the food security of the low income group who had gained some informal access to
land (Ibid).
Land use policies and regulations tend to be subtly based on the view that large sized farms are critical for
agricultural export growth and that small producers should focus on production for own consumption and
domestic markets. Except perhaps in west and northeast Africa in most of Africa, relatively larger
landholdings under freehold or leasehold tenure, are supported by the state, because of their perceived
superiority, towards the production of agricultural produce for exports. But, almost all the coffee exports
in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Ethiopia are grown by smallholders on customary land. The
same is true for tea, beans and various horticultural productions in Kenya. In addition, there are many
smallholder cocoa farmers in West Africa and smallholder cotton farmers in west, east and southern
Africa. Yet the evidence suggests that the production of food for own consumption has become a critical
for the food security and sustainable livelihoods of the majority of Africa people.
3.3.3: The peasant and ‘merchant’ capital paths of land use: large versus small farmers
Africa policy-making perspectives, increasingly portray the belief that ‘commercial’ as opposed to socalled ‘subsistence’ farming is not only desirable but also best promoted through large-scale landowners,
75
and that currently emerging bi-modal agrarian structures which combine a few large scale farmers with a
mass of peasants is of transitory value. This policy perspective, in which the main large-scale farmers in
Africa have been white settlers and private foreign corporations, tolerates ‘subsistence farming’ as a
residual social function sustaining what is believed to be an ‘organically’ unproductive peasantry. This
model has become the goal even in a number of countries, which formerly relied on peasant agriculture
for ‘traditional’ exports. The piecemeal efforts to integrate black elites into large scale farming in southern
Africa through affirmative action programmes, although overshadowed by large scale white settler,
transnational and state farming capital (except in Zimbabwe now), also reinforce this bi-modalism.
Land use policy reforms in Africa, oblivious to mainstream neo-classical agricultural economics
discourses, which argue that smaller sized farms tend to use their land more productively, in terms of
higher unit yields and the use of labour, remain wrongly obsessed with the penchant for economies of
scale in land based production activities, mainly due to their equally mistaken view that viable tractor
mechanisation is tied to large scale landholding structures. The reality is that based upon self-exploitation
of domestic labour in peasant households, particularly of female and child labour, small farmers have
performed impressively in some countries such as Kenya, Zimbabwe, Malawi etc., (Weiner et al, 1985;
Moyo, 1987).
This belief in the greater efficiency of large farms has led to economic and related land use policies,
which concentrate the allocation of most of the means with which to productively use land on a few
indigenous capitalist farmers. This historic resource concentration on large-scale capitalist farmers has
had the effect of concentrating “commercial” production among elites, and has, in a self-fulfilling
prophecy served to legitimise the further expansion of large-scale farm land holdings and undermined
redistributive land reform or land use policies in favour of the peasantry.
As a result of the development policies, in which resource allocations and incentives favour larger
farmers, land use patterns in most African countries tend to be characterised by dominant farming
enclaves of better rewarding but internationally exploited agricultural export production activities. These
‘enclaves’ benefit various rural elites and urban-based farmers and foreign transnational firms, while
exploiting the local cheap labour of the peasantry, landless and unemployed, focusing largely on casual
female labour, as well as, increasingly child labour. Policies which favour this ‘merchant’ class path to
agrarian development not only notably discriminate against the middle and poor peasant classes, but also
focus limited national resources (finance, water, land and other inputs), on maintaining the production of
76
low export earning commodities, with limited domestic market and wider economic linkages. The skewed
income distributions that this outcome produces thus limits the developing domestic markets and the
broad consumption base that is critical to industrial development. This has left most of the continent food
insecure and with limited or lost agro-industrial production and employment opportunities, a process,
which was accompanied by de-industrialisation of key agro-industries and food dumping since SAPS
were introduced in the 1980’s. The poor peasantry has faced the brunt of this land use and development
trajectory.
Moreover, land use policies and regulations which privilege large-scale commercial agriculture over
small-scale farmers are a major source of inappropriate land allocations and land speculation in Africa.
Even the World Bank has acknowledged this (Deininger, 1998; Van Den Brink, 2002), and argues that the
notion of “viable” farm size is not related to production economies of scale. Instead it is the scale of farm
size is always determined socially, through agricultural policies, which define the income targets of
various farmers. In the southern Africa context, farm sizes set using racially discriminatory approaches to
agricultural income target setting. This minimum target was set, in Southern Africa for instance to ensure
that white farmers were able to earn an income that is “socially” acceptable with reference to the white
settler societies. Once the desired income was set a calculation was then made as to how big the farm
should be, and thus the “viable” farm size. On the other hand, farm sizes set for black peasants, were
based upon white minority state planners’ perceptions of the minimum ‘subsistence’ consumption
incomes and thus farming outputs that could sustain peasant households, without competing effectively
with wage labour on large scale commercial farms.
Efficiency had nothing to do with the calculation of viable farm size, as is further demonstrated by the
fact that if large farms were more efficient than small farms, there would be no need for the existing legal
restrictions on farm sub-division (Van Den Brink 2002). As a result of this, to this date large tracts of land
owned by large-scale farmers remain under-utilised in southern Africa, and in other African countries
with bi-modal agrarian structures. The current effort by the World Bank to promote ‘efficient’ land use
and production through more efficient land markets, land sub-division, liberalisation and the removal of
land use regulations (Deininger, 1998) is however integral to their strategy of promoting increased new
exports to stimulate agricultural growth.
The evidence is that relatively new land uses such as horticulture in countries such as Ghana, Zimbabwe
and Kenya yield high profits on smaller land units than is the norm in the large-scale commercial farms
77
(Moyo, 2000). Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) adopted by numerous African governments in
the 1980’s and 1990s have nonetheless tended to retain the concentrated allocation of resources such as
land, irrigation facilities and production infrastructures on large farmers, not small farmers. Large scale
farmers, with their disproportionate access to such resources have thus been the main beneficiaries of SAP
incentives, thus consolidating the move towards the increasingly export market-oriented conception of
land use efficiency in Africa. These SAP policies have thus sharpened the class and racially based
inequalities over access to land and resources, as well as the unequal land utilisation patterns and
capacities among small and large farmers.
Even global agrarian capital is threatened by the growth of land concentration in some parts of Africa,
such as is shown by the evidence from Ghana, although in settler Africa their dominance has been
established through large-scale white farmers. Contract farmer schemes, which are expanding in Africa,
are the basis on which international capital invests in the agricultural sector and directs land utilisation.
Many large international agribusiness worry that the existing indigenous capitalist farmers are
expropriating land and have become a barriers for their operations which relied on peasant subcontractees and community land management schemes (Ibid).
Debates about the relative efficiency of small vis-à-vis large farmers in terms of land utilisation reflect
how dominant perceptions of peasant inefficiency are socially constructed. The tendency to view small
farms as inefficient and large farms as more efficient in terms of yields per unit of land has mainly been
constructed within the racial and class prisms of former settler countries (Moyo, 1995). This perception
long debunked in Zimbabwe (Weiner et. al., 1985; Moyo, 1987), Malawi, Kenya and elsewhere in
general. Increasingly so-called pro-poor growth and poverty reduction strategies constructed for but
‘owned’ by Africans are based on promoting smallholder land use intensification albeit with strong
resistance from elites and large-scale farmers.
3.3.4 Land use regulation, land degradation and environmental sustainability
Given the tendency foe small-scale farmers or peasants to be largely concentrated in marginal land areas,
and to have the least access to water infrastructures and investment finance, it is not surprising that their
land uses are extremely vulnerable environmentally. It is in these peasant lands that land use regulation is
coercive rather than based on incentive.
78
Land use patterns in Africa are very much restricted by the agro-ecological potentials of the land, as well
as the underdevelopment of irrigation resources and the low levels of finance available for and applied to
farm technologies. Africa accounts for 20% of the world’s land mass (2 963 313 000 hectares), about 66%
of Africa is classified as arid or semi-arid, and the region experiences extreme variability in rainfall.
Approximately 22% of Africa’s land area is under forests (650 million hectares), 43% is classified as
extreme deserts (1 274 million hectares), and only 21% (630 million hectares) is suitable for cultivation
(FAO, 2001a; UNEP, 1999). In 1999, it was estimated that about 200 million hectares (32% of the
suitable area) were under cultivation while some 30% of the total land area (892 million hectares) was
being used as permanent pasture (FAOSTAT, 2001). These land use patterns reflect environmental
vulnerability and technological backwardness o African farming, and the framework within the peasantry
is marginalised.
Smallholder agricultural development schemes are notorious for the coercive and discriminatory
regulation of land uses applied to them. Since land held under freehold tenure systems and by the state
tends to be the least regulated while customary tenure systems, under which most of the indigenous
people in Africa live, attract numerous coercive and top-down land-use regulations (Shivji et al, 1998).
However since these customary tenure regimes are important electoral constituencies and they also tend to
be physically remote from the reach of an increasingly withdrawing state, the direct regulation of their
land uses cannot be extensively implemented. The colonialists seem to have been able to enforce many
such regulations with greater vigour than post independence governments have been able to do.
Land use patterns in Africa have tended to develop in close relationship with coercive land use
regulations. Dirigiste land use regulations tend not only to determine which commodities are to be
produced but also the timing and methods of production. In this respect, land use regulations themselves
have been part of the problem of food insecurity at both national and household levels, given their
promotion and prohibition of so-called ‘cash’ (and export) crops over domestic food crops, in keeping
macro-economic incentives and agricultural support services directed at promoting these land use
patterns.
The extension of these short term and external oriented land use regulations and policies degradation,
towards the more intensive extraction of forest, biodiversity and wildlife resources largely for export
markets, has led to greater land use extensification in Africa, and led to a diminishing land and resource
base available to the peasantry. Such processes have themselves not only extended the scale and scope of
79
environmental degradation, but has also reinforced unequal patterns of access to land through the
enclosure of vast tracts of lands by the state and elites. The effect here again has been the marginalizing
large rural populations from access to natural resources for their basic consumption and livelihoods.
It is this inequality in access to land and natural resources, as well as misguided land use regulation,
which underlies much of the land degradation in Africa, rather than the neo-Malthusian demographic
determination thesis, in which increasing demographic pressures on land lead to natural resources
degradation. Ineffective agricultural and economic policies, entrenched by misguided short-term domestic
elite interests and the external manipulation of global agricultural and financial markets structure the land
question of distorted land use regulation and misguided production incentives.
Repressive land use regulations are commonplace in Africa because these are driven by state and NGO
led environmental ideologies, which drive current eco-imperialist approaches to issues of environmental
degradation, conservation and sustainability as eco-imperialism (Kirkby and Moyo, 2001). I these
frameworks global interests create the environmental regimes, under a project of ecological
modernization labelled sustainable development. Nature is preserved as national parks and biosphere
reserves or debt for nature carbon sinks created apparently for the benefit of the third world, but the
benefits primarily accrue to first world interests, specifically elites and multinational corporations. This is
achieved with and through the compliance of local elites and in many cases at the cost of excluded and
dispossessed people. Many responses to deforestation, desertification, soil erosion and biodiversity loss
are within this mode, characterized by top-down hierarchical, neo-colonial systems and in some cases
these totalitarian systems are best described as eco-fascist (Kirkby and Moyo, 2001).
3.3.5 Concluding comments
In most of Africa, land-use regulations and planning frameworks have been an ideological tool for
maintaining the unequal distribution of land and inequitable security of tenure. The regulation of land-use,
usually rationalised on the basis of the need to protect legitimate public interest, is often unevenly applied
to different tenure systems, and through this to different classes of landowners and land-use systems.
Land use regulation is often unfairly and inequitably applied towards the peasantry. In analysing the
various forms and types of regulations governing land-use it is important to go beyond the stated formal
rationale of sustainable development, and to uncover the origins and value systems implicit in such
regulations. In many cases, the imposition of land use regulations is intended to protect the interests of
emerging agrarian capitalists rather than the national or public interest of the poor peasantry. In other
cases, the regulations may, in theory, protect the public interest but, because of unequal land distribution,
80
the impact of such regulations might be to deny the excluded peasantry of their legitimate rights to state
support.
The question is whether these new generations of land use policies and regulation promote efficiency in
the utilisation of land and labour resources, and thus improve national welfare in general. The persistence
of under-utilisation, low land productivity and external land use orientation suggest that land use and
related policies have been an obstacle to agricultural transformation. So far little research has captured
these land use complexities and their implications for land reform adequately. New trends of land use and
productivity in Africa reflect new forms of control over land ownership, its land use and production
content and the benefits derived from these. Understanding land use contradictions in relation to land
control and distribution can contribute towards new conceptions of Africa’s land question.
3.4 The African urban land questions
3.4.1 The location and sources of the urban question
Most of the literature on the land question tends to focus on land problems associated with agricultural
land ownership and use, to the exclusion of urban land issues, given that the agrarian question constitutes
the primary concern of the discourse. However, urban areas are increasingly a critical site of struggles in
terms of growing demand for land for residential purposes, as well as for its use as working space. Urban
land is also central to capital formation, both as ground rent and for speculative purposes. Thus the urban
dimension of the land question takes varied forms, which are critical to this debate on the African land
problem.
Since the 1960’s African cities have been growing at tremendous speed with the rates of urbanisation
reaching average levels of 30% in some countries, today, compared to the average of less than 15% then.
Urban fertility rates and rural to urban migration both continue to drive urbanisation, leading to expanding
demands for access to urban and peri-urban land. Urban demands for land include it’s requirement for
residential purposes, for “urban farming” in the context supplementing the basic food and income needs
of the urban poor, and for working spaces entailing petty trade, industrial and other services provided by
the working classes and the unemployed. Growing urban landlessness, homelessness and “illegal”
settlement constitute the main dimensions of common land question which affects a growing number of
Africans today.
81
But the demands placed on urban land are increasingly mediated but the emergence of urban land and
housing property markets tied to expanding urban real estate enterprises and financial markets tied to
property development. The urban land question is primarily defined by the competing demands for the
control of urban land by capital and the proletariat and semi-proletariat for their social reproduction.
These competing demands are expressed in terms of the contested ownership and uses of urban and periurban lands. The contending actors include the state, at the central and local urban municipality level,
customary authorities and leaders within and around urban areas, “communities” of families with land
standing “indigenous” rights in both old and new cities, various social categories of urban and peri urban
residents, including so-called “illegal” land occupiers (“squatter” or “informal settlers”), and real estate
developers and other elites involved in land speculation.
These contested land claims are mediated through competing urban land tenure regimes, which in most
cities are driven by a process of the conversion of urban, land from customary land tenure regimes
towards state (public) tenures and private property regimes. The major source of the urban land question
is the struggle over the unequal allocation of urban land rights along class, gender and other social
cleavages, and the commodification of land in urban real estate markets which are beyond the reach of the
poor majority. These land questions, extend to large peri-urban zones, rural landscape which also has a
larger proposition of the African population today, surrounding most African cities. While the total urban
land area is smaller than the intensity of the urban land conflicts, the financial stakes involved and the
power struggles and patronage processes entailed, far overshadow the rural land question faced in most
countries.
The urban land question is of fundamental importance to the working classes mainly because both
employment and wage levels in the African city remain so low as to make the costs of access to
residential land, housing and utilities as well as commuting to work, an excessive proportion of the
earnings of the majority. Hence, the overcrowded living conditions, homelessness and ‘illegal’ land
occupations.
3.4.2 The unique roots of the African city and land conflict
The African city is characterized by two distinct origins of the urban space (Mkandawire, 1985), which
define different but increasingly converging forms of land problems and conflicts found in general.
First, are the older urban spaces whereby the cities emerged over a few centuries out of existing rural
settlements and small centres at the African coast. These various sites of long standing village
82
concentrations are found in most west, north and eastern African cities. They include old cities such as
Accra, Ibadan, a number of urban centres in Botswana and most coastal towns. These spaces remained
“owned” by local indigenous communities, through long standing customary land tenure regimes, but
have evolved into freehold and statutory tenure regimes as urban spaces which at times combine
numerous villages (e.g. Accra, Lagos, etc.). Over time and through long drawn land transfer processes
most of these urban lands were transformed into public or state urban properties, while large tracts of the
lands were sold or allocated to numerous individuals and companies through formal and informal land
market processes. A critical aspect of the land question in these cities is the contestation of the land rights
between the original ‘indigenous’ communities, through the customary authority system, with immigrant
populations and the state.
The second types of cities are the truly ‘new’ cities created from “scratch” either the colonial state or the
post-independent states. These were created by alienating large tracts of land from indigenous populations
to create the city, or through the enclosure of vast extensively settled lands to create state land urban
properties. Such cities, which tend to be better ‘planned’ were allocated to various new owners through
state land administrative processes and/or through newly created urban land markets. Typical of these
cities all the southern African, some Kenyan cities, as well as the new capital cities in west and east
Africa. These cities tend to clinically segregate the working class residential sites in ‘townships’ far
distant from elite ‘suburbs’ but relatively close to the industrial estates. In southern Africa such
segregation had a purely racial dimension, in which social services provision was also discriminatory.
Given the immigrant origins of these urban populations and the unaffordable land and housing prices, a
larger degree of informal settlement tends to be found in these new cities.
The creation of these urban spaces has been a continuous and expanding process, such that most cities and
their peri-urban spaces encroach increasingly into rural settlements and farmlands, which are converted
into urban space by the state, “squatters” and land “grabbers”. Thus, increasingly the land distribution
problem expresses itself largely in urban and peri-urban zones.
In eastern, central and southern Africa, urban land problems present complex and deep-seated social and
physical manifestations in both massive urban slums and marginal rural areas under extreme population
pressure. Highly unequal urban income distribution patterns in Africa are reflected in these demographic
patterns of unequal access to land and housing. The lack of access to sustainable incomes outside of
agriculture and unemployment thus underlie the urban land question.
83
In the former settler territories, where racist land ownership patterns were applied in urban areas through
the physical residential segregation of black ‘townships’ from white ‘suburbs’, such segregation remains
largely intact after independence having changed only in terms of the increased number of blacks in the
‘suburb’. Thus the land distribution problem has a crucial social dimension in which elites have sought to
maintain their own enclaves of social segregation in the form of separate schools, hospitals, country clubs,
and so forth. These exclusionary benefits tend to create violent conflicts and criminal activities articulated
along racial and class lines in countries such as South Africa and Zimbabwe.
3.4.3 Urban informal settlements, homelessness and land occupation movements
The evolution of the urban land question in terms of increasing homelessness, informal settlements and
large scale urban land occupation movements is an organic problem of the failure of Africa economies to
develop cities based on the internal accumulation of capital and its investment into urban infrastructures
commensurate with the rate of urbanisation. The urban land question also interfaces with the rural land
and agrarian questions, in which rural underdevelopment and poverty are structurally unified with the
problem of urbanisation processes which are incapable of providing gainful employment.
The South African city provides a good example of these processes which are now common in most
African primate cities. In South Africa, for example, the majority of South Africa's poor are blacks, whose
unemployment rate was 44% in 2000, reflecting the disarticulation of black urbanisation, compared to the
unemployment rate of 6.8% for whites (Pieterse, 2003). The South African urban land problem has been
acute since the 1970’s, and between 1980 and 1989, such that more than 150 percent of the land which
had been declared for African residential development had to be for the homeless. Thus the land set aside
for township establishment increased so rapidly that by the turn of the decade more land had been
allocated for township development than had originally been envisaged in plans for the turn of the century
(Hendler, 1992).
Apartheid was forced to respond to large scale urban land occupations which were driven by the
deteriorating economic conditions. The decline of smallholder farming, compounded by the declining
formal sector employment, increased farm worker evictions, and the ravages of HIV/AIDS, fuelled
migration to towns, and the search for land in the peri-urban areas, (Lahiff and Rugege, 2002). The periurban has become the major site of struggle because the costs and formalities of entry are less
encumbered by urban regulations and market related financial responsibilities in these areas (Ibid). The
survival strategies of these populations include continuous land occupations (Sihlongonyane, 2004) and
informal market activities, such as beer brewing, prepared snacks, hair plaiting, small scale retailing,
84
prostitution, handicrafts, and tailoring, many of which previously had not been commoditised (Bryceson
and Bank, 2001).
But accommodation in such settlements is poor, non-agricultural informal sector wages are low, and food
security is compromised (Bishop and Scoones, 1994; Davies et al. 1999). The demands for security of
tenure in these urban areas is often expressed as a desire for freehold land rights, due to the poor relations
between tenants and private landlords, and tenants and different levels of the state (Marcus et al. 1996).
Similar land access and tenure problems are found elsewhere in Africa. However, the relatively poor
development of urban land markets and the dominance of customary land tenures and rights in the ‘old’
cities, has emerged as the major competing tenure systems and administrative procedures. Securing land
recorded, legally protected title in such cities tends to be extremely bureaucratic, long drawn and fraught
with contestations over the rights. Such process thus excludes mostly the poor immigrants, who dominate
informal settlements.
3.4.4 Concluding comments
The African urban land question of homelessness and illegal settlements while relatively similar to Latin
American and even the Asian situation, can mainly be distinguished from the latter because of the unique
enmeshment of its land tenure systems. Thus while similar economic processes of dis-articulated
development drive urbanisation in the ‘south’, the nature and form of urban land rights provides an
important source of difference in terms of the struggles over urban rights and the role of the state and civil
society in mediating land conflicts. Much more research which brings coherence to our analysis of the
urban land question is thus required.
4.0 Gender land inequalities and tenure insecurity
4.1 Patriarchy, power relations and unequal gender land rights
Cutting across unequal and discriminatory patterns and structures of land distribution, land tenure and
land use are the land questions of gender inequalities. The key land question here remains that women’s
access to and control of land is inadequate and constrained by various customary and generally patriarchal
social relations, and in general their land tenure where women hold land is extremely insecure, while
women provide labour for farming under severely exploitative relations in production and reproduction.
The major forms and sources of this unequal land distribution and tenure problem is its derivation from
the dominance of patriarchy and customary land tenure systems and local authority structures. These
85
perverse social relations, also characteristic in different form of pre-colonial African society, were
contrived during colonial and contemporary times by the male dominated central and local state and
political power structures found in Africa.
Unequal gender relations in land control and use have over time worsened and deprived women of their
land rights in many parts of the continent, reduced the extent and quality of the land rights that they
continue to hold, and failed to cater for the new forms of land rights and growing land needs of women.
Women’s land rights are insecure and inadequate for their ascribed roles as key agricultural producers and
the compelled custodians of reproducing children, as well as of the family livelihoods in rural and urban
areas. Unequal gender rights in land must be understood in the context of the discrimination and
exploitation of women through the instrumentalisation of land tenure regimes against women’s land and
other rights, particularly the manipulation of the means and structures of land use and production. These
processes tend to marginalise women from the products of their labour and the benefits of the control of
land.
The social and economic costs of not recognizing the rights of women to land and property are many
(Tsikata, 2001; Moyo, 1995; Cheater, 1981). Changing concepts of property and citizenship and their
gender implications are critical to understanding land and agrarian relations. Gender relations can be
examined through the different ways in which men and women are inequitably treated in land ownership
and land use relations especially in terms of the role land plays in the wider sub-ordination of women in
the patriarchal structures which dominate broader social and production relations. Race, class, ethnicity,
ageism, economic and political circumstances are thus systematically structured to influence gender
relations with respect to land and the benefits derived from the productive use of land.
Gender based struggles for land where men and their male heirs' have inequitable control of land are
common in Africa. Firstly, disenchantment with male dominated local land administration processes
managed by state, traditional authorities, and local committee structures, with particular reference to
unfair land allocation processes, unclear rules and regulations governing land use in projects and
inequitable systems of resource use charges are key concerns for women. Both the extended family
structure and nuclear families are key production and investment strategies for both subsistence and the
market systems of production, which are utilised by families and communities, through both customary
and formal law systems to structure unequal gender relations (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2002). Often there are
blurry distinctions between customary and formal systems, and between family and community structures
86
which are manipulated by the interests of powerful groups in the allocation and use of land, leading to
unequal gender outcomes of social equity, citizenship and land rights (Ibid).
There is general agreement that customary land tenure rules discriminate against women in Africa.
However why this is so, the ways in which such discrimination occurs, and therefore the most effective
solutions for this are in dispute (Tsikata, 2001). Historical and anthropological work on women’s interests
in land in both patrilineal and matrilineal groups has sought, among other things, to demonstrate that
women did have some significant interests under customary land tenure, and that these have been eroded
by the processes of agrarian change and codification of customary law (Ibid). However, women have
contested and resisted this erosion of their interests in various ways including engaging in practices which
reduce women’s land tenure insecurities by recourse to favourable traditional practices, and less
commonly, by recourse to legal processes (Ibid).
In customary societies, the concept of citizenship (or membership) is differentiated along ethnic, lineage,
gender, and age lines (Ibid). But colonial taxation systems conferred citizenship on male adults through
taxes, and re-enforced land rights on them in this way. Generally, full members of the community have
direct and secure rights to community land and natural resources and to long-term control over certain
pieces of land (Ibid). Allocation of land is generally given to men, particularly after reaching a certain age
or after marriage. Minority ethnic groups and women in patrilineal kinship systems are generally denied
the right to receive allocations of land, particularly women who marry into the community; they have only
use rights to land allocated to them by their husbands (Ibid). This denial reflects women’s (and some
minority groups’) citizenship status: they may be denied any citizenship at all, or may be considered
minors, transient, or second-class citizens (Ibid). Related to this denial of property rights is the corollary
that those who cannot own property themselves become the property of others (Ibid). This secondary
status impacts social equity as evidenced by constraints placed on women’s behaviour and rights such as
women’s inability to enter into contracts (a husband or male relative must sign her contracts), to
participate in the public arena, in women’s vulnerability in dealing with public officials, and in women’s
susceptibility to abuse (Ibid).
The mechanisms or structures which define these unequal gender relations are well known. Patriarchy,
patriliny and the extended family structure are some of the most distinctive features of most ‘customary’
regimes since they also define who belongs to the community and who full members are (Ibid).
Patriarchy implies that all significant rights and powers are held by senior males and that women and
87
junior males do not have the same rights and hold a lower status. In addition, women who marry into the
lineage and community are usually considered transient members. Patriliny means that, for purposes of
succession, men are the medium through which a family’s bloodline is traced and, wealth, property, and
status passed on.
Within the logic of customary societies, however, the extended family with its
expansive network of kin has provided individuals, including women and other persons with lower status,
with a secure basis of material support and protection. Much of this social network has been breaking
down during the last century of marketisation (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2002). Thus both relics of customary
tenure regime and the market economy undermine women’s land rights.
Unequal gender relations in land control have deep roots in the class, race and ethnic aspects of African
society. Ethnic and racial political mobilisation for economic dominance in Africa have distinctly
gendered patterns, which are not well documented, largely because the discourses on ethnicity and race in
the context of the land question tends to be weak on the gender dimensions of the inequalities and
repression that accompany ethnic and race differentiation processes. Thus, “… ethnicity has been
implicitly recognized until now as strictly a matter involving men, because, according to the patriarchal
model, men transmitted only their identity to their offspring” (Jewssiewicki, 1989). This was apparently
so because the indigene in colonial society was excluded from the Napoleonic Code and could legally
convey no property to his descendants (Ibid). However, men, as the only recognized wage-earners in
colonial society, were seen as the main source of transmitting class position to other men (Ibid), despite
the evidence of the real proletarianisation of women, which has never been recognized by either colonial
legislation or historians (Ibid). African women were assumed to only transmit a legal status of 'native', the
basis of which lay in race. The manner in which these processes of social and economic differentiation
and mobilisation influence gender relations in the control of land require further investigation.
4.2 Patterns of gender based land inequities
The widest source of gender discrimination in land controls is in agrarian sphere, given the dominance of
agriculture in the African economy. Women in Sub-Saharan Africa dominate the small-holder sector and
account for more than three quarters of the food produced in the region (Saito, K. A., World Bank
Discussion Paper, 1994). Despite this women generally hold a peripheral position with regard to control
and access to agricultural land, especially in the dynamic context of land reforms and agricultural growth
(Moyo, 1995), as some few examples show.
The attempt to modernize customary tenure systems in order to stimulate market economic activities
through private land property, in countries such as Kenya and Uganda attempted in the 1950s and 60s,
88
and then in other countries in 1980s, have had far reaching negative effects on gender relations and land.
Formalization of land rights has ostensibly been promoted to protect a person’s access to and control of
land and to benefit them through access to credit, agricultural resources, and services, with the expected
positive development effects that include increased agricultural production (and consequently higher
income for smallholder families) through improved access to factor markets (Feder et al. 1988). In theory
these benefits can accrue to women if they become land titleholders, hence the strong thrust of many
women’s land advocacy organisations, particularly NGOs towards demands for land titling.
Gender discrimination in the provision of secure land rights is widespread. Although, women constitute
the majority of the population in most countries (e.g. in East Africa -Kenya 50.5%, Tanzania 51% and
Uganda 52%) and women are critical to the agricultural economy, they enjoy limited land rights
(Lumumba, 2003). For instance in Kenya less than 4% of the women have title deeds to land registered in
their names compared to 7% in Uganda and 10% in Tanzania (Ibid). And, according to May et al. (1995),
women … in South Africa … [face the most severe]… spatial and economic marginalization [among]
rural African women… [because] … women, who have the primary responsibility for household
reproduction, … have limited direct title or control of land. “Such access to land rights is only through
their husbands or families.
Cross (1999) argues that “… land access is closely defended by power structures and is key to the
institutional processes that determine what women can and cannot do with resources in the support of
their households, [while] customary tenure systems are … deteriorating, as corrupt administrators and
developers, on the one hand, and widening divisions within communities, on the other, fail to enforce
accountable land rights” (Cross, 1997; Cross et al. 1996). In this context, access to land by unauthorized
occupations provides women with the opportunity to meet a variety of household needs, including those
that are socially identified as being the responsibility of women (Bryceson, 1995).
The deprivation of women’s rights (control and use), through customary and currently practiced
procedures on land inheritance and property distribution after divorce is however the most widely
contested issue between women and the state/patriarchal institutions (Tsikata, 2001). Yet men remain
central heirs and holders of land rights in patrilineal communities under customary land tenure regimes, as
well as in so called formalised property relations. These unequal gender relations of access to land in a
context of land concentration and privatisation of land tenures is so deeply entrenched that it underlines
the importance over the third land question—the regulation of land use processes.
89
4.3 Concluding remarks: advocacy for women’s land rights
As a result of growing struggles for the redress of gender unequal land rights across the continent
especially through the expansion of women’s NGO networks, African land policies are increasingly
being’ engendered’. Hilhorst (2000) elaborates some of the specific policy provisions that have been
included in different land policies for the sake of improving the position of women in relation to access
and control over land (see Box 4-1). While at the legal and policy level, progress has been achieved, the
implementation of equitable land policies is lagging behind. Much of the failure to implement such
policies can be explained by the rigidities of customary land tenure systems as well as the pervasiveness
of patriarchal values in society in general and in the state machinery.
Box 4-1:Land and Gender Considerations in Selected Countries
Some of the specific legal and policy provisions meant to improve the status of women in relation to land include the
following:
1.0
The Ugandan Constitution includes a commitment to gender equality and affirmative action (Ovenji-Odida, 1999);
South Africa’s Constitution provides for equal treatment of men and women;
2.0
According to Yacouba (1999), equal rights of access to natural resources without discrimination by sex or social
origin are provided for in Niger under provisions of the Rural Code;
3.0
In Malawi, legislation allows women to register land independently of men (Ouedraogo and Toulmin, 1999);
4.0
The Mozambican Land Act enshrines the right of both men and women to use and benefit from land (Quadros,
1999);
5.0
Women’s rights to land are provided for in the National Land Policy of Tanzania;
6.0
In Zimbabwe, policy provides for the joint registration of land in resettlement schemes between husband and wife;
and
7.0
The Communal Land Bill of Namibia provides for women to be represented in the Land Boards, which are expected
to be responsible for the survey and registration of approved forms of land title in their jurisdictional areas
Source: Toulmin and Quan 2000, and other Sources
The gender based land problem demonstrates how deeply rooted land conflicts can be, especially because
the land question tends to be manipulated mainly by male politicians, who in rural areas seek to co-opt
traditional authorities. The centrality of the latter institution in defining patterns of gender inequities in
land control cannot be under-estimated. It is for this reason that advocacy for women’s land rights in the
form of freehold or leasehold tenure is intended to achieve the wider goal of releasing women from the
shackles of traditional authority structures.
These social structures, which influence unequal gender relations in access to and control of land and in
tenure relations, should be understood in the dynamic context of the underlying land questions facing
Africa today. Namely, that growing processes of land concentration and the marginalisation of the land
rights of the poor peasantry and urban populations, mainly affects the scope and security of women’s land
rights. Growing land alienation and the attendant scarcity of arable lands, the enclosure of large tracts for
large-scale ‘commercial’ agricultural, mining and resource extraction purposes, increased marketisation of
90
land rights tend to disproportionately marginalise the rights of women. The urban land question is a
critical site of the marginalisation of women’s land rights. Struggles to reverse these patterns of unequal
land rights confront complex resistance from central and local state structures, while most of the visible
popular land reform movements tend themselves to be male dominated and patriarchal in focus, as are
most of the predominantly male scholars of the land question. The nature and context of struggles for
redistributive land reforms and the role of the state in sustaining the land questions identified above is
discussed next.
5.0 The African state, land reform and politics
This chapter examines Africa’s land reforms experience, with particular emphasis on the role of the state,
in light of the peculiar factors and the empirical trends which distinguish the African land question. We
comment broadly on the African state and the politics of accumulation, and land control. Then we
examine state led redistributive and tenurial reforms, and the reshaping of local land administration
structures. First, what problems should concern African land reforms?
Land reform in Africa would be expected to address the need for extensive redistributive land reforms in
southern Africa and those parts of east and north Africa, which have relatively higher levels of unequal
land distribution alongside landlessness and shortages. In these territories however, limited redistributive
land reforms had been attempted since the late 1950s, while since the 1980’s gradualistic market based
land reforms were initiated in southern Africa. Land reform was only ‘radicalized’ recently under
conflicted conditions in Zimbabwe. The need for redistributive land reforms would also be expected in
other countries, where localized and regional enclaves of land concentration have emerged, through
gradual and piecemeal expropriation by the colonial and post-independence state. Redistribution would
also involve land allocated to public agencies for economic use and environmental protection purposes,
some of which has been concessioned out at a large scale to domestic and foreign capital at the expense of
the increasingly landless or land-short.
African redistributive land reforms would be expected to differ physically from their Asian and Latin
American counterparts mainly because the form of land redistribution required involves restoring lands
which are physically controlled by large landholders through the resettlement of displaced peasants and
alienated semi-proletarians, and the enlargement of peasant land areas using repossessed contiguous
lands. This approach would differ from the Asian reforms in which land renting peasants are allocated
land rights mainly by re-allocating them the ‘title’ to independently hold the land they formerly rented,
and/or by upgrading the conditions under which they rent lands from feudal or semi-feudal landlords.
91
While, to some degree, the upgrading and re-assigning of tenure rights to land users is relevant in relevant
parts of Africa where land rentals and sharecropping have emerged (especially in west Africa), this form
of redistributive tenure reforms, of the ‘land to the tiller’ genre, is more relevant on a large scale outside
the continent.
Redistributive land reform in Africa should be accompanied by ‘progressive’ land tenure reforms to
counter the general tenure insecurities and land grabbing processes, which have been ushered in and
facilitated by regressive state-led land tenure reforms over the last 50 years. Current resistance to land
marketisation and ‘individualisation’ schemes, as well as to the manipulative reform of land
administration structures, through the adaptation of customary tenure procedures and institutions, via new
efforts to decentralise and reform land governance systems, encapsulates the type of issues which would
define progressive land tenure reform.
But the land tenure reform requirements of Africa also include institutional reforms which can defend the
poor against potential land losses as well as accommodate those excluded (e.g. women, minorities,
settlers) from increasingly scarce arable lands. Such tenure reforms would also need to be able to prevent
and resolve conflicts over competing claims over land rights and ensure the fair administration of land
rights and land use regulations. Whether the land tenure reforms required would include the ability to
‘transact’ (rent and sell) and mortgage peasant lands, especially in the absence of measures to prevent
land alienation and concentration, is as politically contentious as its feasibility is questionable.
Our research suggests however that African redistributive and tenurial land reforms, instead of addressing
directly the above land questions, more focused on selective and piecemeal modification of land
management institutions in a manner which has tended to reinforce rather than redress the land problems.
This result, as we discuss below (see sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.3), reflects mainly the peculiar power
relations which define the African state and its agrarian class interests, mediated ideologically and
programmatically through neo-liberal conceptualizations of the land question, land reform and
development strategy.
5.1 The African state, land policy and primitive accumulation
The economic and material foundation of the African state rests largely on primary resources extraction
and export activities in agriculture, oil and mining, and natural resources (forest, wildlife, biodiversity
exploitation), given the low levels of industrial and services sector development. With a few exceptions of
countries which have experienced relatively high but capital intensive industrial growth, such as South
Africa, the control of land and natural resources and their product markets is a dominant factor in the
92
mainstream processes of capital accumulation and social reproduction. These determine the revenues and
resource base of most African states, such that power structures and politics are heavily influenced by
control of land, even where mineral rents are critical.
Large tracts of lands in Africa are controlled by the state. State agencies hold land directly and indirectly,
the state has powers over local authorities which control lands under customary tenure, and through its
regulatory instruments, it wields powers over statutory lands, particularly leasehold lands, and land
markets. State power and political hegemony over national territory and the populations is expressed
specifically through powers over the allocation of land and related resources, the regulation of land
tenures and land use, and through state structures responsible for the resolution of disputes and conflicts
which arise from competing claims over land. Such control is accompanied by extensive state influence
over the allocation and use of water and natural resources, and through this and other policies, the state
influences patterns of land utilization. Thus, African states broker and build power structures and
accumulation largely through land and natural resources controls, land market regulation and patronage
systems. Land reforms represent potential and actual changes in the extant land resource allocations,
regulatory powers and institutions.
The African state, situated within the context of neo-colonial class formation processes and extroverted
economic structures, is itself shaped by differentiated internal social forces which define actual political
power and accumulation, but these remain subordinated to external capital and markets. Yet the state is
central to “primitive accumulation” in general and access to major national socio-economic resources in
particular, given the absence of a mature indigenous bourgeoisie dependent on private capital, resources
and markets. As such, access to political office can be critical to the direction of accumulation. Weak neocolonial African states, whether these were formerly settler colonies or not, retain different degrees of
“customary” regimes of authority, including some forms akin to remnants of feudalism and/or semi-feudal
regimes, such as those found in Morocco, Ethiopia and northern Nigeria, and these play a critical role,
together with the central and local governments, in the control and allocation of land.
Unequal land distributions in Africa grew initially through colonial state instigation and were then
perpetuated by dominant elite capital accumulation and political power structures during the postindependence era. Weak economic performance in general, dependence on the state for basic social and
economic resource accumulation and social services, the over-reliance of the economies and livelihoods
on agricultural resources (land, water, etc), and negative external trade and finance transfers, have tended
93
to induce accumulation strategies focused on a limited set of natural resources, using ‘backward’
technology. This has restricted the scope for equitable resource allocation and improvement of popular
livelihoods. State power has been a key instrument of exclusion from access to land and related resources,
and such power tends to be maintained through bureaucratic fiat, the manipulation of markets, patronage
systems and even wars, many of which rely on external alliances.
The crude use of political power and patronage to preferentially allocate land and related resources to
various groups of the elite and, the resultant inequitable access to land, and the concentration of related
resources, have been institutionalised through inappropriate development strategies, adopted putatively to
resolve Africa’s agrarian question. The dilemma of transforming (read “modernizing”) agriculture and
expanding the related productive base of the economy historically arises from the inability of colonial
capitalism to transform pre-capitalist relations of production, and the adoption of a development strategy
which sought to bypass the African peasantry (Egwu, 1998 citing Beckman, 1984). This strategy
informed class formation processes focused on developing indigenous agrarian and commercial capitalists
in ‘enclaves’ at the expense of the peasantry in some regions, through harnessing alliances of the state and
capital (domestic and foreign), towards an extroverted pattern of development. These strategies evoked
ethno-regional dimensions of the land and agrarian questions.
For instance, efforts to transform agriculture in Nigeria since the mid 1970s, in collaboration with the
World Bank using Agricultural Development Projects, focused on pockets of the elite in various regional
enclaves, to the exclusion of some ethno-regional populations in particular, and remote peasant social
formations in general (Egwu, 1998). Regional variations in natural resource and land endowments
accompanied by the regional concentration of infrastructures and social services fomented an unequal
class and ethnic distribution of socio-economic opportunity and exclusion. This provided ideological
grounds for the evoking of ethnic motivations and deterministic thought in explaining these patterns of
inclusion and exclusion, and the ethnicisation of inequalities which to a larger degree are based mainly
upon local class based interests in alliance with external capital (Ibid).
The expansion of colonial era trade led to attempts by coastal inhabitants in West Africa in particular to
mobilize themselves as privileged intermediaries between the Europeans and the African clientele of the
hinterland (Agyman, 1998), leading to a social differentiation of an ethno-regional character, dividing the
coastal economies from the northern savanna and pastoralist social formations. Structural shifts in the
livelihoods and occupations of southern and east Africans generated both during colonial and postindependence periods, arose mainly from fundamental economic and resource policy interventions which
94
centred on land expropriation and the creation of cheap labour migrancy systems. In Kenya where
colonial land alienation deprived mainly the Kikuyu, some of them instead of opting for squatter
settlement, became petty traders, and seeking new and better markets, spread throughout the country,
especially in new urban centres and along the railway lines, generating ethno-regional resentment.
(Peacenet-Kenya, 2001). Land policies were thus integral to the ‘ethnicisation’ of land control and
‘development’.
Purporting to develop agriculture, national economies and global market relations, the African state led
the process of reforming social relations over land towards private property. These were resisted in most
African countries, as we saw in the struggles over the land Use Decree in Nigeria, (Egwu, 1998). Since
the 1960’s gradualist reforms of customary tenures were initiated through the consolidation of elite
alliances, involving accumulating bureaucrats, emergent capitalists, foreign capital and “traditional”
leaderships. Land marketisation was accelerated under the neo-liberal economic (SAP) reforms of the
1990’s, leading to new social and political conflicts over competing land claims.
New and old conflicts over land expanded on the basis of traditional cleavages of class, gender and ethnic
difference, but also on struggles over autochthony, “indigeniety” and citizenship rights. This reflected the
emergence land claims by national and trans-national migrant workers and settlers, and the new demands
for land as a survival instrument among unemployed educated young peoples and retrenchees of SAP
programmes. These diversified conflicts over land, question the efficacy, if not the legitimacy, of neoliberal land market developments and the political rights and democratisation approaches which
undergirds them. They also question the capacity of older notions of nationality and customary authority
to manage social exclusion and marginalization from the fundamental social need for access (and right to)
to land, and the political conflicts which they provoke or which are instigated by them.
The primary contradiction facing neo-liberal “development” strategies and democratic struggles remains
the unequally globalised markets. Trade relations are intended to replace state interventions as an
instrument of development, for the internal social needs or markets of society within an integrated
economy, based on improving resource and technical productivity and returns to labour at levels adequate
for basic social reproduction. State interventions for development, tied under increasingly market relations
of resource (including land) control have tended to exclude the weakly organised, socially and politically,
and favoured domestic elites and foreign capital, through the manipulation of the markets and
administrative processes which govern resources, such as land and water.
95
The control of land has increasingly become a key source of mobilising power through electoral politics
in which capital and class power direct struggles for democratisation and development. Land reforms can
be critical sites of electoral political struggles, when class and race power structures in relation to the
interests of external capital are unevenly pitched, in the context of unequal land distributions, as the
Zimbabwe experience shows. The 1992 Kenya elections outcome for example was grounded in violent
strategies of maintaining power by politicians who manipulated long-standing, but latent, inter-ethnic
disputes over land, towards physical fights. Thus, the nature and form of control of state power and the
ideological groundings of the ruling incumbents can be critical to the form and content of land reforms.
We examine the nature of land reforms implemented so far, and then later discuss social mobilisations
which influence land reforms.
5.2 The state and land reforms in Africa
The increasing pace of concentration of land among African elites, albeit in different degrees and based
upon varied historic legacies, (see chapter 3.0) is therefore a common but differentiated phenomenon,
notwithstanding variations in the social and political formations found on the continent. This reflects land
reform processes which are dominated by ‘ruling elites’, under the tutelage of external ‘development’
finance and private capital, with the support of largely urban middle class professionals and dominant
urban-based “civil” society organisations. This form of state-society corporatism has generally failed to
redress the entrenchment of unequal development and high levels of wealth inequalities, including
unequal land distribution. Distorted national development, excludes marginalised social groups from the
formal economy and from access to adequate land and related resources. The resilience of the questions of
land concentration, diminishing access to land by the poor, insecure tenures, the marginalisation of the
land rights of women and the growing land conflicts, in rural and urban areas, reflects the inefficacy of the
land reforms implemented so far. The next section examines redistributive reforms in Africa.
The emergence since the 1980’s of democratic movements in Africa, based on constitutionalism and
multi-partyism, as the ‘governance’ framework for land reforms, has not led to power-sharing systems
and policies which promote sustained development, equitability and inclusivity in class, regional and
ethnic terms, nor political harmony. Instead, class, ethnic and other lines of social conflict have continued
to rise largely because of the failure of markets and the reformed ‘governance’ systems to allocate
resources equitably and to enhance growth. Recent efforts at redistributive land and tenure reforms, have
to begin with, been unable to address the national question largely grounded in the question of unequal
race and class based land distribution, wealth concentration and poverty in southern Africa. International
96
interest in land reforms in that region reflects the entrenched interest and power of global capital in land
and related markets there.
Land reforms have also failed to address the national questions of social exclusion and poverty induced by
land shortages and low productivity, in the multi-ethnic and class differentiated and largely rural societies
of the rest of Africa. Land reform as an anti-colonial, anti-racist and nationalist struggle against the
dominance of minorities and imperialism remains to be addressed, just as much as it still needs to be
addressed in the political terms of building stable and inclusive developmental African states. In this
framework, land reforms are a critical to any national development strategy and democratisation process
on the continent.
5.2.1 Redistributive land reforms: state-led and market ‘assisted’ tendencies
Redistributive land reform processes in Africa span the 40 year history of national liberation, but the
experiences vary according to the land questions faced Africa in each country. Whereas different socioeconomic and political specificities determine the nature of land reforms carried out the gradual shifts in
the nature of national liberation struggles among the countries since the 1960’s, tended to reflect changing
ideological and political mobilisation of the social forces engaged in resistance to imperial rule, and the
distinct land reform strategies used. The literature on redistributive land reforms in Africa, and their actual
implementation in recent times is heavily biased towards the southern African experiences since the
1980s, hence our main focus on that region here. For example, land reforms in the SADC region from the
1960s through to the 2000’s experienced a clear, changing and regressing divide between the radical
nationalist-cum-socialist orientation to redistributive land reform and the liberal approaches.
Where national liberation was decisively concluded, such as in Mozambique and Angola, in spite of
internal armed conflicts over the national question, fuelled by external destabilization, the land
distribution question appears to have been broadly resolved, although new sites of localised land
concentration have emerged. Where liberation was relatively partially concluded, as in the main settler
territories of Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa, negotiated settlements left both the national question
and land question relatively unresolved. In particular the racial dimensions of the national question were
not adequately addressed. Thus, racially inequitable structures of wealth, income and land distribution
remained intact, while liberal democratic constitutions and market principles protected these inequalities.
The ‘radical’ land reforms were based upon the nationalization of colonial and settler lands and foreign
commercial/industrial structures of capital (as pursued in Tanzania and Zambia during the 1960’s and
97
early 1970s) and in Mozambique and Angola (from the mid-1970’s). The nature and outcomes of land
reform radicalization also varied. Whereas Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique had pursued ‘socialistic’
land and agrarian reforms based upon developing largely state marketing systems and, land settlement and
use reorganization (villagisation and rural development in Tanzania and resettlement and integrated rural
development in Zambia), Mozambique pursued land nationalization with more intensive attempts at
socialistic transformation, using state and cooperative farms. Angola which started off mired in civil war
did not pursue further significant land reform after land nationalisation from 1975. Civil war in the
lusophone territories, fuelled by South African destabilization and their relative international isolation,
however contained radical agrarian reforms there, with the result that ‘post-conflict’ land tenure reforms
have re-introduced some land concentration.
In contradistinction to this, more liberal strategies of land reform were adopted in the colonial
‘protectorates’, which predominantly faced indirect colonial rule accompanied by minor degrees of white
settlerism alongside colonial cheap labour migrant systems (e.g. Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho and
Malawi). In the latter countries, the land reform experiences involved a limited degree of market based
expropriation of settler lands, accompanied by market led compensation with some colonial finance, as
was the case in Swaziland and Botswana. The expropriated land was ‘indigenized’ as large farms, with a
limited foreign and white minority dominated large scale land ownership and estate farming remaining,
alongside the emergence of state farms and resilient peasant and pastoral agrarian structures. Liberal
approaches to land reform also varied, but consisted mainly of limited market led land re-distribution
efforts and attempts to modernize peasant agriculture within a contradictory context of imbalanced public
resources allocations, focusing primarily on developing the large scale indigenized and state capitalist
farming sub-sector and their increasing incorporation into global agricultural export markets.
The north Africa experience of redistributive land reform, while focused on the 1950’s to 1970s period, is
also instructive. A landmark in Egypt’s land history came with the Free Officer’s coup of 23 July 1952,
which resulted in the redistribution of all land held by individuals above 200 Feddans (1 feddan = 0.42
hectares), thereby removing the power base of the large landlords. The policy generated support among
the small peasantry and land ceilings permissible on individual land ownership fell from 200 feddans in
1952 to 100 feddans in 1961 and 50 feddans in 1969 (Rihan and Nasr, 2001). Since then the major focus
of land policy is the efficient utilisation of existing land and water resources.
98
Yet, in Libya, the state owns any land which is not allocated to sedentary populations, reflecting the
nationalisation approach to land reform, and the promotion in some sense of collective land ownership by
local communities. On the other extreme are the limited post-independence redistributive land reforms of
Morocco, in which the royalty and a few elites held on to the bulk of the best land and water resources,
leaving numerous micro-scale peasant farms eking out a bare subsistence and providing cheap labour to
the former.
Redistributive land reforms that were implemented in North Africa thus varied across the region. For
example in Algeria, the government nationalised the farms formerly owned and managed by French
settlers. The main beneficiaries of these socialist based policies were tenants and other landless
agricultural workers. A similar policy was also implemented in Tunisia upon attainment of independence
in 1956. The new agricultural land property law of 1964 resulted in about 16% of the total cultivable
lands, which represented the best quality land in the country, being taken over by the government (Rihan
and Nasr, 2001). Such land was acquired through the market and was partially nationalised, with a small
percentage being allocated to landless people.
While, the objectives and strategies for land redistribution programmes in Africa vary, their common
focus tends to be to rehabilitate and politically stabilize countries torn by armed liberation struggles and
civil war, rather than extensive redistribution. Some of the stated specific objectives of land reform tend to
include: to decongest overpopulated areas; to expand the base of productive agriculture; to rehabilitate
people displaced by war; to resettle squatters, the destitute, the landless; to promote equitable distribution
of agricultural land; and to de-racialise or expand indigenous commercial agriculture. These objectives are
mostly underpinned by the aim of addressing historical injustices of colonial land expropriation and to
assert the right of access by ‘indigenes’, within the framework of existing legal, institutional and
constitutional frameworks, leading to costly and slow processes of land acquisition and transfer of land
rights. Land redistribution has tended to be proscribed by market-oriented approaches to land acquisition
and the legal challenge by large land owners of the land expropriation mechanism, while the negotiated
voluntary transfers of land has not occurred on a significant scale. African experiences with land
redistribution have in general been based upon four inter-related tactical approaches.
The recently dominant approach used mainly in Zimbabwe and Namibia, before the implementation of
compulsory land acquisition, is the “state centred but market based” approach to land transfers. Land was
purchased by the state for redistribution following willing-seller-willing–buyer procedures. The private
99
sector led land identification and supply through the market, and central government was a reactive buyer
choosing land on offer. Governments identify the demand and match the private supply with beneficiaries
selected by its officials. The land restitution approach followed in South Africa is essentially a state
initiative in which government pays mostly market land prices for redistribution to individuals and
communities who identify their land claims, in a limited land rights and time-bound framework. These
programmes were slow in redistributing land, except during the very early years in Zimbabwe when this
was accompanied by extensive land occupations on abandoned white lands.
The use of compulsory land acquisition by the state with or without compensation for land and
improvements was pursued in Africa mainly in the past, where expropriations with varying levels of
compensation were adopted from Tanzania, Kenya, Zambia, and in north Africa, and since the 1990s
mainly in Zimbabwe. This approach involves direct intervention by government in the identification and
acquisition of land, whose value where compensation is paid is determined at market prices. The
governments also tend to manage the resettlement process, although settler selection is generally more
locally controlled. Zimbabwe has used a mass compulsory acquisition strategy and up to 7,000 freehold
farm properties had been gazetted for expropriation by 2004. Litigation by landowners against
compulsory acquisition has been a key constraint. In South Africa, a few cases of compulsory acquisition
have recently evolved out of its land restitution programme, given the resistance of landowners to part
with their land, while legislation was amended in 2003 to enable smother land expropriation. The South
African government argues that this approach will be used sparingly. In early 2004 the Namibia
government initiated legal measures to expropriate 8 farms, three of which are intended to assuage urban
landlessness, while some of the others are being expropriated to accommodate farm workers evicted by
landlords from their farms.
A third approach to land redistribution that has been tried to a limited degree in both South Africa and
Zimbabwe in the context of testing “alternative” approaches, is the market assisted land reform approach,
espoused mainly by the World Bank. This approach is to be implemented in Malawi from 2004, using a
World Bank grant, in the context of usual macro-economic policy conditions. This land reform approach
is meant to be led by the private sector, communities and NGO’s, who identity land for transfer or
beneficiaries to purchase land within a market framework. This framework of land acquisition seems to
favour the large landowners’ compensation requirements given the land price response to demand.
However black communities in the sub-region resist paying for land, which they feel, was expropriated
through conquest. Very little land has been redistributed through this approach so far, and this is mainly in
100
South Africa. Efforts to follow this approach in Zimbabwe during 1998 and 1999 were aborted before
they took off as the actors tended to fail to agree on financing the process, on whether and how to
combine the use of market and compulsory acquisition, and on the approaches to the identification of
agreed amounts of land for redistribution and the beneficiaries.
Finally there is the community-led land self-provisioning (Moyo, 2000) strategy, mainly in the form of
land occupations or invasions by potential beneficiaries. This approach has tended to be either state
facilitated and formalized, or repressed by the state at various points in time (Alexandra, 2003;
Marongwe, 2003; Moyo, 1995). As a formal strategy to land redistribution, it has not been implemented
on a grand scale in most African countries except in Zimbabwe during the first four years after
independence and then in 2000 under different political and economic conditions, with different formal
responses by the state in the two periods, including its repression from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s. In
this approach land identification is led by communities through “squatting” and the government later
purchases the land at market prices or pays only for ‘improvements’. This approach is what in Zimbabwe
was labelled the “Accelerated Resettlement Programme” during the early 1980s, and dubbed the fast track
land reform (2000-2003), where land occupations were encouraged extensively, and supported by the
state through compulsory land acquisition procedures, and the payments have been staggered and exclude
payments for land itself. Occasional isolated land occupations have been reported in Malawi, Botswana
and South Africa, with the latter having experienced large urban land occupations around the 1980s, and
these were later formalized into home ownership schemes. This approach however is not formal policy in
Africa and tends in fact to be officially discouraged.
These various approaches to land redistribution increasingly tend to be used in combination, although the
market based approach has remained dominant. Recent donor support to land reform tends to favour the
market assisted approach to land reform, which is intended to provide an alternative to the pursuit of
compulsory acquisition on a large scale or to pure willing-seller-willing-buyer approaches. However,
most African countries facing demands for land reform may require strong state intervention in land
markets given the legacy of inequitable social capital and the control of financial markets, and the limited
redistributive outcomes.
The scale and social composition of those benefiting from land redistribution thus far has been narrow.
Since independence in 1990, only about 30,000 black Namibians have been resettled. Of these 6,515 only
have been resettled on commercial farms, and the rest were resettled in communal areas. Land reform in
101
South Africa has gradually picked up pace, although less than 3% of the white held lands have been
redistributed. By 1998, Zimbabwe had redistributed 3.6 million hectares to 70,000 families, during the
first five years of independence. Between 2000 and 2004, about 130,000 families have been resettled on
about 10 million hectares of land expropriated under the fast-track programme. However much of the
acquired land is still being contested by land owners, and the provision of infrastructure and services to
the resettled families has been minimalist, given the lack of state resources during the attendant economic
downturn.
These land and agrarian reforms outcomes have all however led to sites of intensified land concentration,
steady growth of agrarian social differentiation based on capitalist accumulation, labour exploitation and
rural marginalization, and a bi-modal agrarian structure which has become entrenched at different scales
throughout the continent. Overtime neo-liberal land reforms have tended to fuel renewed land struggles,
whose conduct confronts issues of democratic change, as the Zimbabwean ‘dissidence’ on land reform
shows. An overriding land question therefore is that little progress has been achieved in the
implementation of redistributive land reform, while greater effort has been placed on land tenurial and
land use regulatory reforms.
5.2.2 Land tenure reforms
The experience with land tenure reforms is perhaps most documented in west and east Africa. Several
countries in West Africa have pursued land registration as a step towards creating land markets (see also
Moyo, 2003a). The international influences on land tenure policy and legislative reforms escalated in
West Africa since the early 1990s, with countries, such as Guinea, Mauritania, Guinea Bissau and
Burkina Faso, introducing the concept of private property in response to such pressures (Delville, 2002).
When empirical evidence questioned the relevance of privatisation in promoting security of tenure and the
lack of marked differences in investment between customary tenure systems and private property rights,
land tenure policy debate shifted towards ‘local rights recognition’ (Delville, 2002). In Nigeria, Titihola
(1987) reports that land tenure reforms meant that the “government has provided a package of incentives
with the hope of encouraging foreign investors to participate in direct agricultural production”. Le Roy
(1998) identifies several land policy measures in French-speaking West Africa which are characterised by
land codification (Niger), instrumental measures involving cartographic and judicial recognition of rights,
(such as in the rural land plans of Côte d’Ivoire, Benin, Guinea, Burkina Faso), decentralisation of land
management to local authorities (Senegal) and the establishment of Land Observation Posts in Mali.
102
Generally, the notion of land title registration, was introduced in both Anglophone and Francophone
colonial Africa to protect the interests of European settlers. There were, however, exceptions in the
development of land registration systems and land markets in countries like Uganda, Madagascar and
Sudan. For example in Uganda, registration was introduced following the 1900 Buganda Agreement,
largely to restore stability in a kingdom that had been bitterly divided by civil wars and to shore up the
position of the Kabaka (Dickeman, 1987). The agreement provided for the allocation of large tracts of
land (up to 8 miles2 in area - hence the name ‘mailo’ land) to members of the royal family, nobles and
1,000 chiefs and private elites. This marked the formal use of tenure reforms to concentrate landholdings
in indigenous African society.
In Senegal, the Commission on Tenurial Reform was installed at independence in 1960, to reform to the
customary tenurial system, which was considered an obstruction to development. The Law on National
Property of 1964 categorised land into various classes - urban areas, classified areas, established
cultivated areas and recently developed agricultural land in forest frontier zones -and paved the way for
the formal registration of titles. Implementation of the law resulted in several conflicts, such as
monopolisation of huge areas by agri-businesses, restricted access to passageways, resistance by
customary tenurial practitioners to modern land legislation, conflicts between chiefs and rural councillors,
and conflicts between agriculturalists and pastoralists.
Ghana’s Administration of Lands Act of 1962 (formulated by Kwame Nkrumah) nationalised land,
disregarding customary land ownership. However, the 1979 Constitution re-vested land administration in
local authorities, while the 1992 Constitution upholds the authority of chiefs and divides land into public
(vested in the President and managed by a Central Lands Commission) and customary tenures under
chiefs. A series of legal provisions that include the PNDC Proclamation 1982, Article 267 of the 1992
Constitution and the office of the Administrator of Stools Land Act of 1994, have been enacted by central
government to curtail the power of chiefs. The Land Title Registration Law of 1986 requires that all
persons with claim to land be registered at the local registry units in their state. Yet research shows the
increased commercialisation and expropriation of land as a result of the production of export crops, a
phenomenon that has spread from pioneering zones of virgin lands to ancestral lands, setting in motion
serious conflicts (Amanor, 2003), such that increased land pressure and growing land markets define the
de facto land tenure transformations in Ghana.
103
However, while Ghana’s National Land Policy of 1999 recognises the principle of optimum land and
resource usage and the need to facilitate equitable access to land and tenure security, it also emphasises
the private sector as the engine of growth, and states that there is need to encourage ‘responsible’ landuse, through land taxes that reflect economic market values, as well as promoting community
participation in land management (see Moyo, 2003a). Furthermore, the policy seeks to initiate a process
of registering land, beginning initially with harmonising legislation, supporting decentralised land
administration systems, the adoption of pilot projects for testing different ways to register land, and
strengthening of revenue generation within the land administration services (Ibid). These tenure reforms
essentially veer towards establishing land markets in the long-term.
Among the countries in Africa which have developed legislation allowing the privatisation of customary
land beyond west Africa, Kenya was a pioneer. South Africa and Uganda are at different stages of
effecting policy and legislative changes to allow the issuance of titles to customary land. Currently,
Mozambique is implementing land laws and tenure reforms that recognise the need for encouraging land
markets, decentralising authority within state institutions, and integrating customary institutions and
practices into the statutory land tenure regime.
In East Africa and the Horn the post independence land tenure reform policies implemented have ranged
from extreme tenure individualisation and privatisation, as represented by Kenya, to the collectivist
approach to land reform represented by Tanzania and Ethiopia (Moyo, 2003b). Countries such as
Burundi, Rwanda, Comoros, Djibouti and Sudan maintained the private land ownership which existed at
independence, while Burundi and the Comoros expanded private land ownership through the conversion
of indigenous land tenures (Ibid). Kenya has largely remained committed to individual ownership of land
while Comoros and Uganda are at different stages of this path.
Kenya’s Swynnerton Plan of 1955 emphasised consolidation of holdings, individualisation of title and
land registration. In Uganda, the 1995 Land Constitution and the 1999 Land Act emphasised security of
tenure by Uganda’s smallholders, protection of women and other vulnerable groups from ‘irresponsible’
land sales, and the promotion of investment and smooth operation of the land market. Uganda’s land
policy has, therefore, followed the Kenyan route of promoting the sanctity of private property. Somalia,
however pursued public ownership of all land as a strategy for attaining social justice, equality and
development.
104
With a few exceptions, most countries in East Africa have provided some legal recognition to indigenous
customary land tenure (Bruce, 1996). Tanzania, Ethiopia and Eritrea abolished private ownership and
sought to replace indigenous tenure systems with alternative community based tenure reforms.
Collectivisation of tenure took place conspicuously in Tanzania and Ethiopia, the former through
programmes of ‘ujamaa’ and ‘villagisation’, and the latter through ‘land to the tiller’ reforms. To date,
Tanzania and Ethiopia (and now Eritrea) remain committed to broad state ownership of land and tenure
policies which seek to support household farming through decentralised land administration (Moyo,
2003b). Land reform in Ethiopia generally succeeded in meeting the equity objectives, while the peasant
associations provided a nationally uniform framework for the system of local land administration.
Collectivisation and state farms took less than 10% of farmland but were very costly and inefficient, and
beneficiaries were subjected to repeated redistribution of land to accommodate new claimants, resulting in
reduced security of tenure (Ibid).
In north Africa tenure reforms took ascendance from the 1970’s. A major component of the Tunisian
tenure reform land policy was the settlement of land claims through registration and certification of
ownership, supported by a dual plan for promoting economic stability and environmental protection
((http://www.unep.org/aeo/180.htp, quoting Gharbi, 1998)). However, despite the government’s attempts
to encourage registration, half of all eligible lands have not been registered and, even amongst registered
lands, successive land transfers often go unrecorded (Ibid). The process of privatisation of state and
collectively owned lands has also been slow, as has the emergence of land markets. Fragmentation of land
and resources remains a principal concern which the government is attempting to redress by means of
legislative modifications, extension programmes and improved administrative procedures (Ibid). A recent
policy shift saw the government privatising 1.2 million hectares of agricultural land and 600 000 hectares
of rangelands in 1991 (Ibid). In Morocco, land tenure policy has emphasised streamlining registration,
controlling land fragmentation, the standardisation of tenant contracts, and the privatisation of stateowned and church-owned lands. Private tenureship is seen as providing greater security and greater
incentives for investment on the land.
This Africa-wide trend towards land tenure reforms, in the form of individualisation and titling of
customary lands, was heavily sponsored during the 1970s and 1980’s by donors who were convinced of
the superiority of private property rights (which they conflated with secure property rights), (Basset, 1993;
Platteau, 1996). Later in the 1990s, when these schemes failed to gain social and political acceptance, the
World Bank in particular adopted a neo-institutionalist, evolutionary stance towards land tenure reform,
105
arguing that, as population pressure increased, societies would spontaneously evolve new property
relations and land markets, and that the task of African governments would be to formalise such evolving
property relations through titling (Moyo, 2003b). As a result there has been a marked shift in land reform
tenure policies from a paradigm of replacement of customary tenures to one of its adaptation (Bruce,
1994), based on the recognition of existing land rights and the notion of tenure security. Guere (2002)
summaries this as follows, “The new programmes aim to give legal status to existing, locally recognised
rights, in contrast to their de facto denial under statutory law.” Several African countries, which have
adopted market liberalisation programmes leading to the establishment of land titles and registers are bent
on encouraging investment by domestic and foreign entrepreneurs, contrary to the claim of recognising
local land rights, even if for now only small areas have been subjected to formal registration and titling.
Notions of creating secure land tenure system now dominate tenure reform debates, in Africa, although
the content of security varies from country to country and across sub-regions. In general the basic tenet
underlying land tenure legislative reforms is to protect the land rights of holders and ensures that the ‘rule
of law’ is applied when land rights are extinguished or land sequestered by the state. This tends to mean
that land has to be appropriated through consent and that appropriate compensation is paid to the former
landowner. The empirical evidence of changes in land tenures and distribution of landholding suggests
that these policy ideals are hardly achieved where reforms have been implemented, and that where land is
expropriated from those considered to be colonial or foreign settlers, the right to compensation is
contested.
Empirical evidence of land titling in Africa shows that the benefits of titling have been minimal with
respect to the increased financing of, investment and productivity of agriculture, contrary to expectations.
Instead, land registration tends to have increased the transaction costs of land, with more resources being
spent on registration and administration than on productive use of the land, while undermining the
jurisdiction and participation of local communities in land administration systems dominated by local
traditional and religious authorities. More critically, land registration benefited particular elite classes and,
in some instances, privileged ethnic groups of people by giving them access to more and better quality
land, leading to disproportionate benefits to the finances invested into agriculture. Apart from the
exclusion that titling brings to the poor, numerous social and land rights problems have emerged at the
family level, including disputes over inheritance, exclusion of women, and conflicts over access to village
level common lands, including burial and spiritual places. This begs questions about the efficacy of local
land administration systems, which we discuss next.
106
5.3 Local state governance and customary land tenure administration
Because the literature on Africa’s land reforms focuses on land tenure problems, it tends to identify weak
land administration systems and the need for their reform as the main issue of concern (Quan, 2000;
Adams, 2000), rather than the redistribution issue. Land administration reforms tend to be proposed
within a neoliberal conception of good governance, focusing on the decentralisation and democratisation
of land institutions, to enhance land administrative efficiencies, broad based representativity of local
structures of land control and civil society participation in land administration, within a framework of
introducing formal and statutory law in the land management systems. The main purpose of these
proposed land governance system reform is to develop ‘secure land tenure’ regimes, implicitly to make
the institutions benign to market processes.
However most African governments have yet to allocate the resources and build the capacities required to
create these new systems of land administration (Palmer, 2002). Decentralised land reform
implementation processes have failed to take-off, largely due to a lack of both financial resources and
technical capacities, as well as the lack of political will (Ibid). The Rural Land Plan of Côte d’Ivoire and
the Land Commissions in Niger instead introduced pilot programmes as a strategy for testing new
institutions and provisions, while in some countries such as Niger, the Rural Code was initiated through
public hearings and studies of tenure rights throughout the country (Toulmin and Quan, 2000).
There is no doubt however that, African land management institutions pose vexing problems, and that
these constitute an important aspect of the land question. The institutional frameworks for land
administration are exceedingly complex and fractured (Shivji, 1998; Palmer, 2002). There are numerous
competing agencies involved in land administration, including line ministries and central government
departments, several large parastatals as well as urban and rural local authorities and traditional leaders
(Moyo 1995). The responsibilities of these different agencies in different aspects of land administration,
within the different land tenure areas tends to overlap, and create confusion and conflict amongst the
various players, thus posing difficulties for the creation of integrated and comprehensive land
administration processes (Shivji, 1998).
In general, land administration conflicts in much of Africa, are derived from the conflictual relationship
over the power of the state to allocate land vis-à-vis that of customary law authorities (Mathieu, 1996).
Control over land allocation and concession procedures in post-independent African states, tends however
to be increasingly delegated to ‘elected’ or appointed rural councils, leading to conflicts between formal
107
law and customary land rights (Delville, 1999). In formal law (e.g. in Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso),
where the “traditional chiefs’ are granted the right to mediate “customary rights,” this is most often
limited solely to the right to cultivate (Delville, 1999). This contradicts fundamental aspects of customary
land tenure regimes, wherein the authorities responsible for land allocation also played a role in regulating
local land-use systems (Delville, 1999). But although the state has taken over the absolute right of land
allocation, these local authorities usually remain legitimate in the eyes of the community and continue to
enjoy considerable political power (Ibid) over land management systems. The right of eminent domain
and the power to allocate land rights are fundamental to customary systems and the power of local
authorities, hence pre-colonial states used their right of conquest to allocate land to their clients or
servants (Ibid).
In Ethiopia, the Agricultural Land Law of 1975 removed land ownership and land allocation powers from
traditional authorities, and individuals were required from then on to register their land, while restricting
both the size of landholding and the period of the usufruct rights (up to 50 years). (Submarian, 1996). The
costs and time required to register the land became a major barrier while titles were disproportionately
allocated to outsiders, town dwellers, and the state and cooperative farms displaced small farmers.
Community elders never accepted this statutory system of land allocation and often actively opposed
those with documentary title. Since uncultivated land risked appropriation by the government as well as
outsiders, unregistered farmers tended to clear their bush land although they might not have had plans of
cultivating it (Ibid). Ethiopia thus remains committed to state ownership of land, with the responsibility
for the development of new tenure arrangements (leasehold) land taxation and ensuring equitable land
holding sizes devolved to the ethnically defined regional governments.
A truly democratic approach to land administrative reform would require that the following basic
principles of democracy be the guiding criterion for resolution of land administrative problems: equity,
efficiency, accountability, transparency, legitimacy, and participation (Shivji et al, 1998). The
concentration of administrative powers in national authorities with regard to the allocation and use of land
and natural resources tends to be the main contest. For instance, most national parks and forest areas are
controlled by central government statutory institutions such as parastatals in the form of boards,
commissions and committees, and these allocate occupancy rights and concessions to a range of interests,
through licenses and permits, for hunting, fishing tourism or logging. Such central government land
allocations are excessively centralised, but they tend to lack transparency and their procedure is time
consuming (Shivji et al, 1998). Popular demands for transparency reflect protest over corrupt land and
108
resource allocations, especially the tendency for state officials and political leaders to dominate the
licenses, leases and concessions. The land administration institutions also tend to be inaccessible and
unrepresentative of local interests (Ibid).
In many African countries a dual legal system which presides over land conflict management and
adjudication has been the source of many conflicts and contradiction over land rights (see Tsikata, 1991;
Shivji, 1998; Lastarria-Cornhiel 2002). Customary law in land matters in southern Africa, for example
applies mainly to indigenous Africans, while the formal legal system is reserved for white settler land
markets (see also Mamdani, 1996). African countries with ethnic groups that practice different customary
legal systems may or may not recognise the dominant systems of customary adjudication. In those
countries with significant Muslim populations (such as in Nigeria, Tanzania and Sudan) their adoption of
Islamic family laws in predominantly Muslim regions contradicts the customary laws and received
legislation on land that applies to other regions with different legal traditions (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2002).
The problems of promoting land administration systems which recognise the existing legal pluralism
rather than a simple legal dualism in land management is increasingly the subject of much critical debate
in Africa (Alinon, 2003; Tsikata 1991). The problem with the recent promotion of legal systems which
adapt customary land tenure through land codification is that they both homogenise procedures and raises
new equity considerations. Often the resistance to the recognition of social equity in land rights tends to
be masked under customary land tenure administration and adjudication procedures and in conflicting
statutory law mandates. (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2002).
In many countries land administration remains highly centralised and there is poor representation and the
institutions which adjudicate land issues at the local level are widely dispersed (Shivji et al, 1998). At
best, weak land administration systems tend to be created at the local level, a situation which tends to
perpetuate centralised land administration powers over customary land tenure regimes. Furthermore as
Amanor (2003), argues within rural West Africa there are limited channels for addressing land grievances
and demands for land tenure reform. Rural popular organisation tends to be weak outside of the
‘community organisations’ and structures, which are dominated by lineage elders, a framework which has
been reinforced by the state, and these ‘community organisations’ prevent rural demands from being
placed in a broader horizon beyond the community (Ibid). Within this ‘community development’
framework it is difficult to present demands other than the local parochial interests of the settlement.
109
Thus, since the territorial distribution of local “traditional” authorities are generally based upon
lineage/clan social structures with particular ethnic identities, land conflicts tended therefore to assume an
explicit or implicit ‘ethnicised’ character. Colonial administrations in Africa universally created
administrative and political districts around ‘tribal’ chiefdoms, which in many cases contrived regional
centres of ethnically based chiefly authority over groups which had in fact been autonomous, and thus
generated conflicted land administration structures. In Zambia for example, the MacDonnel Commission
of the 1930’s was set “… to demonstrate the separate and independent origins and development of the
Lunda and Luvale tribes and their autonomy from the Lozi … It sustained both Luvale and Lunda claims
to autonomy and the government responded by creating Balovale District and separate Luvale and Lunda
Native Authorities. As the Luvale and Lunda saw it, they had saved themselves from Lozi over lordship
after a generation of struggle” (Papstein, 1998).
The great lakes region for example is also confronted by wider ‘ethnicised’ land tenure conflicts arising
from civil wars, voluntary resonal migrations and population displacements as has been the case in
Burundi, Uganda, Rwanda and the DRC, where there are increased threats to and conflicts over the
control of natural resources. Here, the traditional rivalry between farmers and pastoralists fuelled by
government policies, which are against pastoral common property tenures is compounded by high
population densities and, ethnic tensions, in a situation of excessive competition for land and natural
resources.
Success in developing local land management structures is scarce. However in Tanzania, the Land Act
and the Village Act, both of 1998, provide the legal framework under which a village council can
“register village lands, including village forests or other common areas, in the name of the village or
register them in the name of a user group or association” (Deiniger, undated). This approach has
reinforced the importance of community based forestry management in Tanzania and has provided the
linkages between land and forestry policies that are often missing in various countries.
In countries such as South Africa, Mozambique, Uganda and Tanzania, the new tenure laws and policies
make room for individuals, groups of people, associations and communities to register as legal entities
that can own land in their own right. (Palmer, 2000). The key issue with regard to land administration is
the extent to which official sanctions apply to different forms of tenure. Many communities resent the
heavier presence of administrators (besides the traditional leaders) in customary systems of tenure than is
found in freehold tenure regimes, perceiving it as based upon restricting (and in some cases criminalising)
110
use of natural resources and imposing land-use policies, which the local people may not like. The fact that
individuals under freehold tenure, including on plantation estates, tend to have more rights to the
management of their land creates the problem of the assumed superiority or inferiority of the different
forms of tenure, when in fact these problems are based on the form of land administration.
Thus tenure inequities are reinforced by the fact that the expropriation of land for ‘commercial’ and
‘social’ development is usually carried out by central state institutions, which in the name of development
and national interest, allocates land to state projects and private commercial interests, to the exclusion of
the poor (Amanor, 2003). When this expropriation is opposed by rural people, the legal channels open for
them to readdress their concerns are limited, since the state has created the legal framework through
which it initiates the process of expropriation (Ibid). This is usually carried out by unrepresentative land
bodies including chiefs, elders, and others in leadership positions at Ward level (Shivji, 1998; Amanor,
2002; Murombedzi, 1999). While chiefs are often the partners of the state in expropriating farm land, they
are recognised by the state as the legitimate representatives of the people, such that their role in the
mediation of land conflicts is usually overshadowed by transmitting government orders to the rural people
and ensuring compliance with policies (Amano, 2003). Their powers are omnibus and not separated as
would be required in theory by liberal political systems.
Land policies have also tended to focus on the development of land administration structures that are
expected to take the lead in implementing tenure reforms. Dispute resolution processes are increasingly
being provided for in the emerging land policy documents, although their effectiveness is questionable. In
Ghana, a council of elders and land allocation committees are expected to help the customary trustees in
all aspects of land management, including the allocation of land to strangers and the settlement of disputes
(Kasanga, 2001). In Tanzania, the Land Commission recommended the creation of the Baraza la Wazee at
the village level and the participation of the elders (wazee) in the Circuit Land Court and at the High
Court as the main land dispute resolution structures (Shivji, 1998). The Malawian land policy proposes a
dispute resolution process characterised by, in ascending hierarchical order, a Village Land Tribunal, a
Village Tribunal, a Tribunal of Traditional Authorities and the Central Land Settlement Board.
But, as Amanor (2003) argues, recent land administration and adjudication reforms have had limited
results in Africa. For instance, during the 1980s most West African states developed comprehensive
schemes for democratic decentralisation involving community participation in development planning
(Ribot, 2001; Amanor 2003). These involved local level elected Rural Councils in Senegal, Decentralised
111
Territorial Collectives in Mali and Burkina Faso, and District Assemblies and Unit Committees in Ghana
(Ibid). Downward accountability was distorted by ‘participatory development projects’ which mobilise
organisations dominated by chiefs and other village elites, who impose decisions without heed of the
plurality of interests and social differentiation in rural communities (Ibid). The structures coerce
compliance with global and national policy directives of natural resource management and usage (Ibid).
Thus community participation through traditional authority structures and institutions tends to undermine
any movement towards popular democracy, downward accountability and platforms for rural people to
develop informed land and development policy perspectives (Amanor, 2003).
These land tenure institutional reforms, are generally costly, and current financial resources allocations to
them are limited. Yet the preoccupation with formal land tenure reforms, has tended to mean that most
official land policies neglect redistributive aspects such as improving access to land, water, nature parks,
forests and woodland resources by the poor, while efforts to improve environmental security, alleviate
poverty, and improve land and labour productivity tend to focus on small-scale ‘in situ’ palliatives in
marginalised peasant lands.
5.4 Concluding comments: land reform outcomes and impacts.
The role of the African state in promoting equitable access to land through redistributive reforms has been
limited. Tenure reforms have instead increased land concentration. Existing African legal frameworks and
institutions for managing land allocation and land use or dispute resolution tend to protect the interests of
those with disproportionately larger land rights including those property rights derived from past
expropriation, rather than the interests of the victims of these inequities. Clearly, in most African
countries there is a need to correct and modify the colonial and contemporary distortions of so-called
“customary law,” with regard to both the configuration of the existing customary land rights, and the
administration and adjudication of such rights. This dilemma of tenure inequity also faces those countries
which had large segments of their lands alienated under private property tenure regimes. Traces of rural
resistance of undemocratic and inequitable land governance systems and land redistribution are
increasingly evident because of their negative social impacts.
The impacts of unequal land distribution and tenure insecurity on poverty has tended to receive minimal
consideration in official land reform programmes, although the exclusion of various social categories of
vulnerable populations from sustainable land based livelihoods has become a critical feature of Africa’s
land question. Natural resources (common resources such as forests, water, and land) remain important to
the livelihoods of the majority of the population, just as much as supportive agrarian policies and access
112
to farming resources are necessary for effective land use among the marginalised. For those who do not
yet have any land, the officially perceived lack of ability to use it properly tends to lead to exclusion from
land reform processes. Whereas many peasant households which suffer from various resource limitations,
including debilitating diseases, face constraints to the use of their land due to inappropriate land use
policies, public resources continue to be focused on elite farmers. Thus, vulnerable household members
tend to seek jobs for quick money. For those who do have access to land, limited and declining skills and
labour, along with depletion of financial and reproductive assets, which accompany social vulnerability,
tend to undermine their ability to make use of land and natural resources.
Where a family has land, family members become chronically ill or die, their ability to mobilise labour to
work the land diminishes. According to Mullins (2001), if a family lacks the labour to make use of its
own land, and also lacks cash and other resources to hire skills and labour, it (or the decision-makers
within the family) may resort to selling or renting land. There is a tendency for those living with
HIV/AIDS to be excluded from land reform programmes, due to their non-selection in systems, which
focus on ‘successful’ farmers, and/or for them to lose their land due to illness. Across Africa, between 15
and 35% of adults between 15 and 49 years are HIV positive, and many are likely to become chronically
ill and die within ten years, while at least half of today’s 15 year olds are likely to contract HIV (Ibid).
State institutions which directly or indirectly support land reform, and supply essential goods and services
or provide markets, are also affected, limiting their capacity to carry out land management functions
(Ibid).
The moral and social considerations of ‘poverty reduction’ in land reforms, as well as the wider class
based land interests of land-short peasants and semi-proletarians, tend to conflict with the short term
agricultural productionist emphasis of developing larger scale capitalist farming, in most land reforms.
The constraints to land use faced by the poorest families and their land losses tend to be ignored by state
led land reforms. While the issues of concern to the socially vulnerable are becoming more central to
‘poverty reduction’ strategies, they tend not to be adequately addressed in official land reform processes.
This suggests that without social pressures from ‘below’, through land reform movements, the land
reform agenda’s of the marginalised might for long be neglected. We discuss trends in the social
mobilisation for land reform next.
113
6.0 Social movements, civil society and land reform
6.1 Social movements, land rights and struggle
Because of the centrality of access to land in the livelihoods of the majority of Africans social demand for
land reforms, have grown and these express themselves in different forms depending on the nature of
social forces which articulate the demands. But the literature on peasant organisations and social
movements targeting land reform in Africa is not currently robust. Indeed debates about the nature of
African peasantries (Mafeje, 1997), and their resilience Bernstein, 2004), suggest a lag in our
understandings of the future of peasantries (Amin, 1972). Intellectual discourses on the demand and
struggles for land in Africa have tended to be limited to extremely narrow perspectives on the nature of
demands and popular pressures for land reform, leading to a tendency to under-estimate in their political
analysis of the land question, the scale and scope of the constituency that demands radical land reforms.
The emergence of new social movements and NGOs in Latin America and the recreation of its peasantries
which underlie these movements in relation to the evolution of struggles for land there, suggest the
renewed political and social significance of the social pressures for land reform. In many countries,
peasants and landless workers are the major actors in stimulating the development of a comprehensive—
albeit limited—agrarian reform programme even in cases of state-led reform (Veltmeyer, 2004). The
existence of a revolutionary option towards land reform has generally been resisted by the state, acting on
behalf of the landed (Veltmeyer, 2002), such that these social movements have been undermined by the
state (Ibid). Peasant-based social movements in Latin America have increasingly taken a radical stance
towards land reform through promoting direct action such as land invasions and the use of armed force in
relation to the state (Ibid). The growing interest in land reform and related social change has so far
however been the preserve of scholars preoccupied with constitutionalism, electoral and multiparty
politics, democracy and governance (Veltmeyer 2002).
The creation and recreation of the peasantry occurs alongside exclusion from land and, in the process of
their social differentiation and displacement by merchant and elite classes (see Moyo and Paris, 2004).
This process does not necessarily lead to the proletarianisation or the transformation of the peasant into a
capitalist class, resulting in the so-called disintegration of the peasantry (Lenin, 1985 and Kautsky, 1986).
It leads to the recreation of the peasantry in different forms. One is by the “subjection of income from
land to capital that happens with the subordination of peasant production to capital that dominates and
expropriates income from the land and, in addition expropriates practically all of the surplus produced,
114
reducing the income of the peasant to the minimum necessary for his/her physical reproduction” (Oliveira
1991, cited by Fernandes, 2001). The land occupation tactic has thus been a major tool of peasant
resistance to exclusion (Ibid). Hence, land struggles are central to efforts to regain access and autonomous
control, over land (Moyo and Yeros, 2004).
In Africa however, civil society groupings associated with the current renaissance of peasant
organisations in Africa are predominantly middle class in content with strong international aid linkages.
These structures tend to neglect radical land reform strategies and reproduce formal grassroots peasant
organisations as appendages of middle class driven development and democratisation agendas. Rural
operations of civil society in Africa within a neo-liberal framework have been characterised by demands
for funds for small-project ‘development’ aimed at a few selected beneficiaries (Moyo 2002), leaving a
political and social vacuum in the leadership of the land reform agenda (Moyo 2001). Membership of
formal rural or farmers political unions tends to be widely differentiated, with leaderships dominated by
an elite group of ‘capable’ farmers whose demands are for larger portions of freehold land (Moyo 1996).
These organisations like their counterpart community based organisations, which form mainly under the
social control of lineage hierarchies, far from representing the majoritarian peasant demand for
redistributive land reforms, have been co-opted into neo-liberal land tenure reformism. The majoritarian
interests seem to be more often reflected in ‘informal’ movements, of a variety of social forces, including
those that pursue land occupations, resource poaching and sabotage.
Land occupation movements such as those in rural and urban Zimbabwe, before and after the country’s
independence, represent an unofficial or underground social pressure used to force land redistribution
onto the policy agenda (Moyo 2001). The 2000-2001 occupations in Zimbabwe, mark the climax of a
longer, less public, and dispersed struggle over land in that country, which intensified under adverse
economic conditions that were exacerbated by the onset of liberal economic and political reform (Ibid).
The dynamics of land reform in this and other contexts are complex and variegated, and can best be
understood in political terms—that is, in terms of a protracted struggle of peasant, poor urban workers and
other rural groups for access to land, and in terms of the reaction of the dominant landholding class to this
struggle, as well as the responses of the state. Land occupations thus take form as a tactic of class struggle
and direct collective action (Veltmeyer, 2003).
Social movements are differentiated and adopt different strategies whereby their actions might contradict
some progressive struggles on issues such as democratisation or land reform. In Africa tactics of the land
115
occupation for example has not been nationally comprehensive and the absence of the social and
institutional infrastructure necessary for widespread mobilisation of the African peasantry could be a
major bottleneck. This is compounded by the neoliberal ideologies which define the strategies of civil
society organisations concerned with land reform.
Research on African social movements, inspired largely by rational choice interest group theoretic
frameworks, informs us more on the way in which farmers associations and federations can be utilised in
the policy lobby or advocacy agenda’s grounded in state neoliberal practises, rather than on radical land
struggles. From this we learn more about lobbies for modernisation through increased exports and
improved land use practices, and the short term financial and environmental utility of rural change for
global markets and ecological stabilisation. The related research focus on formal associations to the
neglect of underground and sporadic social movements is a critical reason for the dearth of literature on
land struggles.
However, social movements involved in land struggles are numerous albeit isolated and scattered.
Theoretical perspectives which seek widespread social movements rather than incipient processes of
organised land struggles, show that high profile as well as the numerous low profile land conflicts of both
a spontaneous and engineered genre define Africa’s growing land question (Moyo, 2001). In general,
even formal farmers organisations and unions which collaborate with the state, are differentiated in their
political intent and domestic policy demands (see Khalid, 2002; Abutudu, 2002), given their relationship
to capital and state driven land processes, and existing alliances with external social forces. Numerous
social movements resist the dominant logic of capitalist development in areas and in particular struggle to
retain control over land (Lumumba, 2003).
6.2 The organisation of land struggles
The unequal forms and sources of access to and control of land in Africa generate varied social and
political contradictions and conflicts over land, including various forms of resistance struggles to regain
land rights. These struggles are also actively resisted by various social agents, including individuals or
classes, with landed interests, ethnic formations, racial syndicates, traditional and elite leaders, political
parties and specific agencies of civil society in various political alliances and social movements. Land
reform and resistance movements can be progressive or reactionary, broadly national or local, ethnic or
nationalist, class based, or trans-class and race based or trans-racial or particularistic in terms of specific
land rights, religious or not. They can be purely domestic or linked to foreign interests, including
traversing regions such as pastoral trans-national groupings or ethnic formations such as the Tutsi. In
116
some cases international capital from imperial states supports such movements, at times in alliance with
local ‘comprador’ elites using trans-national armies.
Land and natural resources struggles tend to revolve around five major issues. First, is the general scarcity
of land, which forces villagers to occupy land, perceived to be vacant. Secondly, electoral competition
tends to mobilise illegal settlements among aggrieved villagers. Thirdly, communities also dishonour
boundaries which restrict their livelihoods. Fourthly, the marginalisation of certain social groups forces
them to defy certain rules and regulations and lastly, armed conflicts ensue, they often result in
opportunistic resource grabbing and the destruction of environments, which in turn spur wider land
struggles.
Official analyses of demand for land tend to underestimate the nature and scale of demand and to ignore
the racial, class and social tensions which underlie inequitable land distributions. Demand for land reform
takes various forms in terms of type and quality of land and resources claimed, and the tenures sought.
Land demands also arise from various sources, including: formal and informal demands, legal and
underground, or illegal, forms of demand for land redistribution, and demands which may be based upon
the restitution of historic rights or contemporary demands based upon different needs. The different types
of organizations which mediate such demand include: civil society organizations, farmers’ unions,
political parties, workers’ unions, War Veterans Associations (e.g. in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Namibia),
business associations, representing elites in need of land, community-based organizations of peasants and
urban working peoples, and, lineage and religious structures. While these structures are central to the
shaping of demands for land redistribution, their social and class content tends to vary, and at times to be
dominated by elitist interests.
Strategies and mechanisms used to advocate for land reforms take a variety of shapes in terms of types of
institutions or organisations that tend to be involved, ranging from formal national level civil society
structures, international NGO alliances, local level individual or networked NGOs and, local community
committees. The tactics used include: formal policy advocacy activities by a variety of civil society
organisations as well as non-formal and even illegal self provisioning tactics (land occupation, resource
poaching, the market exit option/parallel markets), including also legal or repressed confrontational tactics
(mass direct action, boycotts, etc). In general a combination of these forces are used, together at times
117
with armed insurrection, and these seem to contribute towards the creation of a policy environment
conducive to the adoption of or co-optation into state-led land reforms .
For example land reform policies in southern Africa, as they have in countries such as Brasil, seem to be
evolving through the interactive use of market and compulsory land acquisition approaches for the
redistribution of land to both the landless and an emerging indigenous agrarian bourgeoisie, as a response
to the growing mobilisation of popular pressure. At the local level, peasants use various strategies to press
for their land demand, such as the ‘poaching’ of natural resources, fence cutting, illegal settlement/land
occupations and resistance to development projects, while civil society organise focus on land reform
policy advocacy.
In addition to the above forms of organisation and struggles of land movements, armed rebellions which
emerged in Africa over the last two decades, excluding the liberation struggles waged primarily over land
in former settler states, have tended to include elements of struggle for land rights and territorial
autonomy, including over land allocation systems. Mkandawire (2002) has argued that most of the armed
rebellions in Africa have been led by urban combatants, who are aggrieved by common urban social
problems, and are not led by or in sympathy with rural grievances, such as land alienation, especially in
non-settler Africa. It would be a mistake to assume that the land questions emerging in Africa are not an
important source of some of these ‘rebellions’, as the mobilisation of rural grievances over land and
‘traditional power structures’, together with urban grievances over the lack of urban employment, which
in turn has forced the urban youth towards rural land resources, in these conflicts can not be overestimated.
For instance, the mobilisation of an apparently mainly rural grievance over land in the Ivory Coast, due to
the competing claims over land rights by autochthones vis-à-vis long term “foreign” migrants, still
considered non-citizens, was heightened by the growth of unemployment among unemployed urban based
youths (see chapter 3.0). Rural grievance was critical in the recruitment of rural youths in the Sierra
Leone rebel wars, largely because of the collapse of rural markets and repressive traditional authority,
including land tenure systems (see Richards, 2004; Abdullah, 1997). The re-mobilisation of land
reclamation or occupation movements by liberation war-veterans, the ruling party of liberation movement
origin, and the state in Zimbabwe since 1997, involved substantial components of urban semiproletarians, the working and elite classes in general (Moyo, 2001).
118
But rural grievances can be mobilised by central state structures or regional groups of politicians for
direct short term electoral gain, as we saw in some districts in the Zimbabwe 2000 elections, albeit by
mobilising latent land occupations movements. And violence can be instrumental in such processes,
leading to displacement, as we also saw in Kenya (see box 6-1).
Box 6-1:
In 1991, “ethnic/land” clashes, which at their peak affected three of the eight provinces (Rift Valley, Nyanza, Western) and
twenty out of the sixty-two Kenya's districts, erupted in Mteitei farm, Nandi district, Rift Valley Province. By November 1993,
over 1,500 people had been killed and more than 300,000 displaced. Thousands of people were displaced thus not able to cast
their ballot. Violence continued after elections in such districts that were known to be pro-opposition as Nandi, Kericho, West
Pokot, Trans-Nzioa, Kisumu, Kakamega, Bungoma, Nakuru and Uashin Gishu. The clashes served to frighten and intimidate
non-Kalenjin ethnic groups (that presented a greater threat to the ruling elite of losing parliamentary seats and subsequent
control of parliament and state power). Large numbers of Non-Kalenjin ethnic groups were displaced from the Rift Valley
before the elections.
Yet these ‘rebellions’ and land movements exhibit critical contradictions in so far as they can entail both
progressive tendencies, such as anti-imperialist, liberalist redistributive and democratising impulses, and
retrogressive practises, such as excessive violence, opportunist resource grabbing and various criminal
activities such as stock and property theft (Moyo, 2001). Nor are these broad land reforms and liberation
‘struggles’ immune to being co-opted into the neo-liberal development paradigm and, its extroverted land
use and agrarian market precepts (Moyo and Yeros, 2004), once beholden by development multi-lateral
conflict management and humanitarian aid interventions. Indeed the trans-nationalisation of some of these
“rebellions”, financed by transnational mining capital, using private armies (e.g. mercenaries and security
firms, such as the now formally closed up “executive outcomes” company) or local warlords, points
largely to the tendency for contradictory values and politics of the movements.
Thus there is a tendency for leaderships of some ‘land movements’ to be dominated by elites, who seek
both private opportunity (greed), alongside assuaging local land and other social grievances. Contrary to
the thesis which simplistically demarcates some of these African conflicts and movements as motivated
mainly by ‘greed’ (Collier, 2000), the instrumentalisation of disorder (Chabal and Daloz, 1999) and
narrow authoritarian nationalism (Raftopolous, 2003) more complex sources of social mobilisation and
confrontation over resources in Africa have to be sought (Mkandawire, 2002). We elaborate on these
issues below.
6.3 Neo-liberal land advocacy and the co-optation of land reform
Despite broad consensus in Africa among governments, the landless, civil society, landowners and the
international community on the need for land reform, actual redistribution, tends to be limited. The onset
of structural adjustment programmes, as well as multiparty “democratization” since the 1980s, which
119
tended to reinforce and expand the liberal political and market dimensions of civil society organisation
and advocacy, has not led to extensive redistributive land reforms. Instead, salient land demands of the
middle classes and elites have tended to be precedence within civil society organizations and both the
ruling and opposition parties, within a liberal political and human rights framework, with less attention
given to the fundamental issues of economic restructuring and redistribution of resources outside the
market. The demands for land by the poor (rural and urban) and elites are founded on the contradictory
objectives of enhancing the livelihoods of the former and the accumulation strategies of the latter. Thus,
the predominantly urban-led civil society has not formally embraced extensive redistributive land reform,
given the class interests of especially the NGO leaderships. Informal rural demands for land, including
land occupations and natural resource poaching remain a critical source of advocacy for radical land
reform.
The multiplicity of organisations which are engaged in struggles for land and related market control,
yields a variety of ideological, material and organisational conflicts. The politics of national land policy
making and implementation appears at times to be about settling common middle class and elite
ideological and material differences within the state, ‘civil society’ and the emergent bourgeoisies, over
private landed property, the control of agricultural markets, and access to agrarian resources and
institutional protections provided by the state and donors.
For example, the Uganda Land Alliance, which started as a network of concerned individuals but later
transformed into an NGO, managed to change the content of what became the 1998 Land Act and also
convinced the government to engage in a wider consultation process (Zimmerman, 1998). The land policy
issues negotiated included: the centralisation of government institutions and their authoritarian practices,
the dominance of state institutions and their excessive regulations on other stakeholders; political and
institutional corruption (e.g. land grabbing, patronage), contradictory laws, inaccessible land dispute
resolution mechanisms; dissipation of local expertise, and the monopolised information on land policy
(Ibid). Less visible in these negotiations was the reversal of wider land concentration processes and
longstanding unequal landholding.
In South Africa, the national land committee has argued that land reform advocacy civil society is weak,
such that demands from ‘below’ are muted, and the incentives for the state to release more resources, are
diminished given calls for fiscal discipline. Civil society lacks resources and can be a stumbling bloc to
120
radical land reform: ‘[t]he rural society had been “demobilized” by the 1990s as NGOs leaders had moved
into government positions and the trade union movement placed decreasing effort into organization of
rural farm workers’ (Pearce 1997). As a result, communities that enter the market driven land reform
process and are willing to pool their acquisition grants become vulnerable to inflated land prices (Kock et
al. 2002) because market mechanisms coupled with a weak state has meant that power relations remain
unchanged. Landowners are able to dominate land transfer negotiations to their benefit, and the
commercial land offered for redistribution has been of low agro-ecological value, having already
experienced poor environmental management by inefficient white farmers. This has left rural people with
little money to build shelters and plough into productive farming (ibid). Moreover, women’s power in the
land redistribution process has remained limited, since men typically dominate the collective access to
and use of household land and income grants.
In general a wide spectrum of non-state organisations, including private business lobbies NGO’s and
community based organisations are engaged in engaged in struggles for land reform, using the tactic of
providing a variety of policy services including policy analysis alongside lobbying, research extension
and information services, and community land development services which attend to the specific needs of
NGO members and the public. Such organisations tend to be spatially and socially differentiated in their
contribution to the formulation of land reform policy and they work at different levels (local, national and
sub-regional) of the policy process.
Since the late 1990’s therefore, NGOs have emerged as an important lobby for land rights, with some
NGOs turning to the more structural causes of poverty such as lack of access to land as the means of
social and economic reproduction. Legislative debate, the drafting of parliamentary bills and lobbying for
land has been led by NGOs, particularly in Uganda, Mozambique, Tanzania and South Africa, as well as
by farmers unions and traditional authorities. Most of the actions of the NGO’s land advocacy has
received support from international NGOs, and bilateral and multilateral donor institutions, while in some
countries land tenure reforms legislation was developed at the instigation of donors, as part of the
conditions for financing structural adjustment programmes.
With a few exceptions, such as the Land Campaign in Mozambique, which succeeded in making rural
communities aware of their new rights under the law and how to go about legally establishing them
(Negrao 1999), much of the new national land policies which result from NGO lobby, tend to mostly
reflect state interests. The common approach used to guide such interests, includes expert panels, task
121
forces, investigating teams, or comprehensive commissions of inquiry, which involve quick consultation
processes and reports which often provided material for the state’s independent land policy decisions.
This has been the case with the Presidential Commission of Inquiry on Land Policy Reforms in Malawi,
the Land Commission of Tanzania, the Land Tenure Commission of Zimbabwe, and so forth. Not
surprisingly given the predominately middle class basis of most NGO land advocates, few have supported
radical land advocacy struggles, such as land occupations.
Yet non-state or NGO efforts to mediate land conflicts can also be critical. In Kenya for example, the
mediation of local conflicts in an area most affected by tribal clashes and cattle rustling and land
ownership, where the peace processes had not enjoyed the support of the Government nor of local
politicians, was led by an NGO multi-actor forum, and it restored some peace in the Rift valley region
(Peacenet-Kenya, 2001). Relief, policy advocacy and development projects led by National Council of
Churches of Kenya (NCCK), the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission (CJPC), provincial
administration, NPI/Roman Catholic, ECJP, Clean, GTZ, PACVAC, SACDEP, OXFAM, the media and
the donors were used to resolve these problems (Ibid).
Since many civil society organisations, are generally one issue oriented they tend to divide between those
with structuralist (redistributionist) and proceduralist (governance) perspectives of social and economic
change, even though in reality these issues confront society in unity. These approaches to NGO land
advocacy raise contradictory tendencies in the ideologies and foci of land and social movements,
especially between those who struggle for access to social (land and broader resource redistribution)
rights and those focused on political (civic and human) rights. Over the years, the formal demand for
radical or extensive land reform has tended to be submerged, especially in recent struggles for
democratization, by the proceduralist thrust of civil society activism, much of which is ensconced within a
neoliberal framework. This is reinforced by the fact that recently the balance of external aid, to civil
society in Africa has tilted towards the support of ‘governance’ activism. While ‘governance’ activism
may be necessary, exclusive emphasis on its tools has served to highlight mainly the issues of human
rights and electoral transgressions by the state, to the detriment of the redress of unequal structures and
social rights issues at the national and global level. With the exception of food aid, HIV/AIDS and health
social activism, which have received most of the aid as basic humanitarian and poverty support,
development as state responsibility has become of less concern to aid.
122
Civil society discourses on land reform, therefore to the extent that these go beyond human rights and rule
of law issues, have been focused more on procedural aspects of land tenure reforms. Where they address
redistributive reforms, their focus has been on a procedural critique of methods of land acquisition and
allocation, without improved tactics or workable offering alternatives to land market acquisition and
expropriation instruments. Nor have they mobilised marginalized peasants in support of extensive land
reform in the face of resistance by landlords and other stakeholders, as we have seen in Brasil.
Civil society demands for land reforms in Africa frequently represent the emerging class interests of
business executives, agricultural graduates civil servants and ‘consultants’, who tend to dominate land
reform policy debates and advocacy. For example, de-racialising large-scale commercial farming is a
particular land reform perspective that has gained importance in former settler Africa, to a critical extent
at the expense of the landless. In Zimbabwe, land reforms since the 1990’s for example had promoted the
emergent black large-scale farmers in what appeared less as resettlement than a land reallocation
programme intended to redress racial imbalances. By 2004, 30% of former white lands were held by
about 5,000 black elites on medium to large but relatively downsized commercial farmlands, as well as
about 20,000 small-scale black commercial farmers, as distinct from peasant and other small farmers
(Moyo and Yeros, 2004). In South Africa and Namibia land policies have also sought to create and
empower black commercial farmers as an integral aspect of their land reform.
These essentially neo-liberal land reform movements tend to marginalize the vulnerable and less
organized social groups. For example groups such as the war veterans in Zimbabwe, while having led the
land occupations movement received less than the 20% quota of resettlement land, which they had fought
for. Whereas significant progress has begun to be seen in recognizing women’s land rights in policy, in
practice women’s land rights have remained marginalized at law in most of the countries. Farm workers’
land rights, especially to residential and farming land have tended to be marginalized in all the former
settler territories. In Zimbabwe the fast track land reform programme had accommodated less than 5% of
the former farm workers who had been displaced by 2003, while in Namibia and South Africa landlords
continue to evict them at will, reflecting their weak autonomous organisation, and under-representation by
civil society organisations concerned with human and social rights.
In Botswana some civil society organisations, are however moving beyond the neo-liberal paradigm of
democratic struggles (e.g. the enjoyment of basic freedoms, civil liberties and regular free and fair
elections), and are increasingly calling for economic empowerment and social justice over land and
123
natural resources allocations, to avoid future conflict (Molomo, 2003). Thus, in spite of the predominantly
middle class social base of NGO’s which dominate the “visible” debate within the current power structure
and distribution of economic resources, and their external donor driven linkages (Ibid), there is an
incipient struggle over the land questions of inequitable access and control, and tenure insecurity. This
advocacy tends however to be mobilised within a social and human rights framework of ‘defending’ the
land rights of ‘indigenous’ ethnic and marginalized minority groups, particularly the Basarwa.
6.4 Land occupation movements of peasants and others
Under colonial rule, the land cause was led by the liberation movements, and in the 1970s, was pursued
by means of armed struggle (Chitiyo, 2000). In the post-independence period, civil society advocacy for
radical land reform has been slow to emerge as discussed above. Advocacy for extensive redistributive
land reform in southern Africa countries continues to be predominantly led by former liberation
movements’, war veterans’ associations, the scattered efforts of traditional leaders and spirit mediums,
and the few emerging but narrowly based ‘leftist’civil society organisations, as we have seen in
Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa. In the latter, a few left leaning NGO groups have supported the
formation of the Landless People’s Movement (LPM), although the contradictions of white middle class
intellectual leadership of the black people’s landless structures, and the trans-class and nationalist nature
of the interests in land, have become evident in the slow maturation of a nation-wide radical land reform
advocacy agenda. Black indigenisation or affirmative action lobbies, some with ethno-regional and gender
foci, have on the other hand re-focused the land reform agenda, more towards the de-racialization of the
ownership base of commercial farmland. Thus, a dual essentially nationalist approach to land
redistribution advocacy for both large black farmers and poor peasants now dominates the formal or
official land reform agenda.
The social and political mobilisation for land reform in southern Africa has for example heightened racial
and class polarisation and contradictions around approaches to implementing land reform within a context
of democratisation. Land occupations and resource poaching strategies tend to target various forms of
state lands, particularly forests and national parks, and communal areas, as well as privately owned lands
(Moyo, 2000). In the latter, land occupations are found on large scale farms or lands whose legitimate
ownership and effective use are contested, as well as where labour and other social conflicts between
landowners and land hungry people exist (Moyo, 2001).
124
In the case of Zimbabwe, land occupations have targeted various land tenure categories over the last two
decades, including white owned ‘commercial land’ and state land (Moyo, 2000, 2001). In areas where
forest and national parks are dominant, state lands become the soft targets for land occupation. As Moyo
(2002) found, “The land occupations represent an unofficial or underground social pressure used to force
land redistribution to be taken seriously. The 2000-2001 occupations mark the climax of a longer, less
public and dispersed struggle over land…”
For example in Zimbabwe, war veterans and landless peasants, the urban poor as well indigenous elites
utilised land occupations, in collaboration with dominant elements in the state and ruling party, to force
the government to pursue official compulsory land acquisition in a ‘fast track’ programme. The
Zimbabwe land occupations movement of 2000 was thus a trans-class nationalist movement, instigated by
the ruling party and led by war veterans, who mobilized latent and usually repressed, scattered land
occupation movements of peasants, traditional leaders and semi-proletarian groups, towards land
repression. Once the scale and force of such movements had reached a peak in 2000, the state was forced
to use mass scale land expropriation measures, which targeted 90% of the former settler lands for
allocation to about 150,000 families.
In South Africa, organised radical demand for access to land has mainly been found in the urban and periurban areas, given that 70 % of the population is urbanised, leading to an urban land occupation
movement. However, the demand for land in the rural areas is also growing and leading to polarisation at
the political party level and between white farmers and blacks demanding access to the land of their
ancestors, at the back of significant violence against landowners. The emergence in South Africa of a
landless peoples movement demanding land redistribution for workers and peasants, with an explicit
threat to boycott the ANC in elections, has had the effect (alongside the pressures from Zimbabwe’s
experiences) of bringing greater urgency to that government’s land reform initiatives.
South African land struggles have taken different forms over the centuries, depending on the relative
balance of forces at a particular time or place, including militant actions, social and political movement
protests and ‘illegal’ land occupations. Land occupations became popular in the 1980s and have remained
the most active mode of articulating the plight of the landless in the post apartheid period (Eveleth and
Mngxitama, mimeo). Various waves of land alienations led to social resistance, which escalated in
opposition to apartheid in the 1960s, and later saw the United Democratic Front, together with churches
mobilise against forced removals, working closely with communities. Resistance gained momentum in
125
the 1980s, when the struggle against land removals began to be the subject of a legalistic and human
rights debate, with called for a stop on the demolishing of urban shacks. This coincided in the late 1970s
and 1980s with the emergence of land rights non-governmental organisations (NGOs) fighting against
forced removals under apartheid segregation law (Group Areas Act) and other related racist laws. The
National Land Committee (formerly National Committee Against Removals) emerged this way, and since
1999 has promoted the establishment of the Landless People’s Movement in 2001 and the Landless
People’s Assembly.
Land occupations however were rampant in urban areas in the late 1980s. These were fuelled by the
removal of apartheid laws by F.W. De Klerk, which sparked a massive movement of people in South
Africa and from neighbouring countries into South Africa, to both urban and rural areas. The flexible
stance of government to squatter settlements (including the upgrading of informal settlements and support
for green field settlement) encouraged land occupations, as did the institutional and policy vacuum in
government associated with the transition period of 1990−94. But these institutional issues are secondary
to the force that massive poverty, inequality of land access, and housing shortage brought on land
reclamation among South Africans. Approximately 13.5 percent of all urban households (1 million
households) lived in ‘freestanding’ squatter settlements on the urban peripheries and in backyards of
formal housing units (RSA, 1994), reflecting an increasing housing backlog due to low rates of formal
housing provision, and an increasing number of land ‘invasions’ towards in informal settlements and
backyard shacks, in overcrowded conditions in existing formal housing areas (Royston, 1998), and the
failure of the land delivery promises.
Transforming the wider social and class relations of agrarian production, particularly land property rights
in which the rights of peasants and semi-proletarians have been marginalized, is at the centre of a few
radical land movements, which are slowly emerging in Africa. In South Africa, organised groups of
landless people, rural land restitution claimants and labour tenants, increasingly frustrated by the slow
pace of bureaucratic land reforms, worsening working conditions on white commercial farms and, by the
continuous land evictions which the state is unable to stem, are slowly organising themselves into a land
rights movement, which some NGOs and political parties are joining. Resistance to gross human rights
abuses by white farmers against labour tenants, growing demands for access to land from white
commercial farmers, and resistance to labour re-engineering processes, which reduce the status of labour
tenants to the even less protected category of “farm workers”(NLC), are the focus of these struggles. They
resist farm eviction orders, trespass notices, court cases, fines, bribery of law authorities by landowners,
126
and even prison sentence. They also confront demolition of their homes, the closure of access to water
taps and natural resources (e.g., rivers), the barring of tenants from rearing livestock, the chasing of
family members out of the family, and even the demolition of tombs. Their struggles resist landlord
powers over labour, the constitutional protection of landlordism and the failure of the market assisted land
reform approach to redistribute land.
The scarcity of land in Malawi has resulted in the encroachment onto private land, gazetted forests,
national parks and other protected areas that border high land pressure zones and, in some cases, such
actions have turned violent (Kanyongolo, 2004). A study by the Land Commission in Malawi showed that
leasehold and freehold land were often targeted by land hungry citizens, a trend which was mainly
observed in the tea growing areas of Mulanje and Thyoto, and the tobacco estates in Kasungu
(Government of Malawi, 2000). A similar trend of encroachment was also observed in relation to the
national parks and wildlife reserves of Malawi. For example, the Nyika, Kasungu, Lengwe and Liwonde
National Parks were quite vulnerable to such encroachment. The root cause of the problem is that most
national parks were established after the displacement of entire villages, an example being the people of
sub-chief Kachulu in Rumphi who were forced onto valleys of uncultivable gradients (Kanyongolo,
2004).
In Kenya, ‘illegal’ urban and rural land occupations, whose intensity in Nairobi and Mombasa are notable
(Lumumba and Kanyinga, 2003), have been a long standing source of pressure for land reform, in the face
of elite land ‘grabbing’. Settlement of game and forest reserves is also extensive in a country like Uganda
where the Kibale Forest Reserve and Game Reserve/Corridor in Kabarole district, Mabira Forest Reserve
in Mukono District and Queen Elizabeth National Park in Kasese and Kabarole Districts have been the
target of illegal settlement (ibid). Similarly in Ghana, resource poaching, where peasants and youth
‘illegally’ harvest farm produce and trees owned by elites, state and private corporations is not uncommon
(Amanor, 2003).
Women have also been a critical component of land occupation movements, especially in the rural areas
(Cross, 1999), but in struggles which go beyond the nationalistic or class dimensions. Access to land
through occupations provides women with the opportunity to meet a variety of household needs,
including those that are socially identified as being the responsibility of women (Bryceson, 1995). Many
women tend to be pushed into land occupations because they are more vulnerable to unemployment than
men (Lalthapersad-Pillay, 2002). Since most rural women do not have high literacy levels or specialised
skills, they are rendered superfluous in the low-skilled job sector. Even in circumstances where women
are employed, they tend to be drawn into the very bottom and often worst end of the formal economy,
127
such as domestic service and commercial agriculture. Land gained through occupations also shifts the
social struggles that repress women in general, given that ‘gender ground’ livelihoods require new
solidarities in the face of laws in unequal struggles.
These recent African experiences of rural land occupations in Zimbabwe, in peri-urban South Africa, in
rural Namibia, Malawi, Botswana, Kenya, Uganda and Ghana thus demonstrate the intensity of popular
demand for land redistribution. They reflect a diverse range of social forces such as the rural landless,
former refugees, war veterans, the rural poor, the youth, former commercial farm workers, women’s
groups and the urban poor and black elite. Thus while land reform, has been rural oriented and focused on
promoting national food security and agricultural development, urban demand has also come to the fore.
The cutting edge of demands for land reform at this stage rests on expanding the access and rights to land
by the poor, the landless, and disadvantaged sections of society such as women, farm workers, and poor
urban workers. Because research and media documentation of these trends are weak, and only high profile
land occupations are noted, our perspectives on the demand for land reform tend to be narrow and
‘surprised’ by purportedly ‘spontaneous’ land movements (Moyo, 2001).
6.5 Ethno-regional movements; successionism and revolts
Another organisational dimension used in Africa to mobilise pressure for land reform is the ethnoregional dimension of civic association. These claim to promote local development and/or to mobilise
resistance to regional inequity under the leadership of urban professionals and the elite. One of the most
extreme cases of the use of ethno-regional associations to mobilize power, and the control of land can be
found in the experience of the Zulu in South Africa. The …
… “Zulu ethnic movement ... [was] a response to the immense social dislocations which resulted from capitalist
development in South Africa. As increasing numbers of people were pushed into the towns in search of work, social
relations in the countryside were transformed and whole communities disrupted. The cheap labour system and the
racist ideology which accompanied South Africa's industrialization exacerbated the tensions” (Marks, 1989). …The
significance of Zulu ethnic associations and cultural nationalism was that it diffused class-based organization and
fractured national movements ...” In the 1920s the creation of the first Inkatha movement was explicitly seen as a
counter to more radical tendencies and was envisaged by both the South African state and the black middle class as a
counter to the ICU and to 'Bolshevik' propaganda in the countryside…. More recently, the second Inkatha movement
has been seen by many whites as the answer to more radical forms of politics, whether nationalist or more overtly
class-based” (Marks, 1989).
The motivation of land movements, which are intended to address wider ethnic grievances in various
ethno-regional contexts is increasingly being led by elites seeking to attract state investment into their
rural districts of origin. One author (Papstein, 1989) suggests for example that: “Luvale and Lunda
intellectuals and civil servants, some of whom now hold important national positions, … attribute …the
lack of 'development' in [their] potentially rich agricultural area [to] … tribal strife and antagonism which
lead the central government … [limit its]… investment of resources in an area where localism [can]
128
hinder … [such investment]. The major locally perceived reason why the [ethnic conflict] issue must be
settled is that this would be a first step towards economic development, better school and medical
services, and the creation of an infrastructure which would allow local farmers and fishermen greater
participation in the national economy” (Ibid). The extent to which the social differentiation and land
concentration which accompanies such ethno-regional dominates these movements is not well
documented, although Abutudu (2002) has noted how such differentiation processes can be critical in the
Nigerian situation.
Apparently ethno-regional land movements appear to emerge in various countries, such as those
representing the san in South Africa and Botswana, and pastoralists in east Africa. Increasingly the land
struggles in Botswana involve ethnic minorities and some NGOs challenging the dominant paradigm of
the nation-state and nation building, which is constructed through the diffusion of the values of the
majority culture of the dominant Tswana groups (Molomo, 2003), demanding the reversal of Basarwa
land alienation and source disruptions. A Working Group on Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa
(WIMSA) (comprising 100,000 people) which is a trans-national land and social rights movement of the
San ethnic formations in South Africa, Botswana and Namibia has also emerged with the support of
NGOs from these and other western countries.
6.6 Concluding comment
The fundamental issue of concern is whether the strategies of emerging African social movements which
demand land reform have the potential to influence radical land reform or not, in both the classical and
historical sense of land as an element of the agrarian question. To answer this, the conceptual framework
required is one which provides a structural rather than an eclectic analysis of the evolution of social
movements around the land question in Africa based upon a clear understanding of their social and class
origins, strategies and, impacts (Rahmato, 1991; Veltmeyer, 1997; Moyo, 2003). Various studies on
whether African struggles for land reflect a systematic mobilisation of incipient social movements (see
Moyo and Yeros, 2004) or whether they merely exhibit defensive and reactive tactics of the “politics of
everyday life” (see Scott, 1985) are fortunately emerging as the survey above shows.
7.0 Conclusions and suggested research directions
The African continent faces a critical land question in terms of both contemporary equity and historical
social justice issues. A large proportion of the African population will for some time depend on land and
natural resources for their basic social reproduction and employment, while primitive accumulation
processes increasingly revolve around land concentration. These issues remain central in the tenuous
129
relations between the state and civil society, and to wider struggles for democratisation and national
development. Yet the literature on the land issue in Africa has tended to focus narrowly on selected
aspects of the land tenure and land use problems, to the neglect of issues of unequal land distribution and
struggles for land rights, vis-à-vis land reform policies. Our understanding of the political economy, and
social relations of land control and land use is thus limited.
A number of theoretical and methodological problems were identified in our review of the literature on
the African land question. A particular source of weakness is the tendency of much of the research to reify
land property relations through an institutionalist perspective on issues of land tenure security. More
critically, the empirical evidence on the precise scope and the extent of change in land distribution
patterns, land tenure relations and market relations, and land use patterns in Africa has yet to be
adequately collated. Much of the research tends to rely on superficial analyses of domestic agrarian class
formation processes and the forces of external capital which underlie land concentration. A worrying
result of this is the understatement of the contradictory ways in which the state and various class alliances
have increasingly undercut the land rights of African peasant and urban societies. There is a clear need to
systematically document the processes which shape unequal control of land and struggles against this.
Research on the African land question can be fruitfully advanced by examining three dimensions of the
land question, in both their rural and urban context. That is: land distribution conflicts, land tenure
insecurity and the forces that limit the beneficial use of land for local markets. Land struggles around
these dimensions need to be explored in terms of the gender, class and ethnic relations which shape
conflict, and the role of the state in mediating social demands for land. This requires a multinational
research programme on the historical and contemporary land questions, including the institutions and
state-civil society relations which underlie them. Because urban land questions and gender relations in
land are critical but under-studied aspects of the land question, these two themes require both special
focus and cross-cutting treatment. Some of the interrelated research themes and questions that could be of
interest in the Codesria study on Africa’s land question are:
1.0
Historical trajectories of the land question and the agrarian transition,
2.0
The land distribution question and redistributive reform,
3.0
Land tenure, property rights and land markets,
4.0
Land use and extroverted accumulation processes
5.0
Gender relations, access to land and tenure,
6.0
The urban land question
130
7.0
The politics of land, and state-civil society relations, and land movements
The specific research issues that could be addressed in these thematic areas are briefly outlined below.
This broadly defined thematic scope suggests that CODESRIA could pursue an expanded medium term
research programme on the land question in Africa through both its multinational working group and
research collaboration with various African research institutions concerned with the land and agrarian
question.
Historical trajectories of the land question and the agrarian transition
The research issues pursued in this thematic area could be treated in historical terms in the context of
colonial and post-independence attempts to resolve the land question, including the way in which
independence movements and other social movements have confronted the land issue. Colonial and
current neoliberal and economic policies and structures, and the variety of efforts made to undertake land
reforms in Africa since the 1930’s, could provide a backdrop to understanding contemporary land
questions. Studies could document various phases of land contestations and conflicts, as well as the
effects of agrarian change on the evolution of the land question. The land conflicts studied could include
long and short term resistance to land loss and direct actions (such as land occupations) in response to
various local, national and international pressures to restructure land control and related economic
relations. Those land conflicts over land which emerged from large scale expropriation of farming land
from Africans during the colonial period should be one focus, while localised processes of land
concentration should be another. The research could also explore the conflicts and struggles over land
embedded with natural resources, minerals and oilfields. The historical evolution of the institutional and
legal framework of land administration and conflict mediation could also be examined.
The histories of the politics of land reform will need systematic study. This should include attempts to
understand the resurgence of liberation movement land politics, based on anti-colonial and antiimperialist struggle, in societies polarised on racial and other ideological lines. The ‘meanings’ of land to
African society and the politics of ‘belonging’, as well as political strategies used to gain control over
land, including the influences of various ‘discourses’, such as nationalism and neoliberalism, also need to
be investigated. The history of the land question could be explored in terms of the evolution of indigenous
agrarian and other capitalist forces in alliance with metropolitan capital, within the larger context of
Africa’s agrarian transition.
131
The land distribution question and redistributive land reforms
Research could explore in detail the more specific proposition that unequal land distribution tendencies
are emerging on a larger scale than so far documented, and relate this to the structures of political and
economic power relations in Africa. Trends of land alienation, marginalisation and concentration
processes, and struggles to resist this and to restore land rights, at both the large and localized scale, need
to be assessed. Research could uncover the contradictory property relations and struggles in various
countries in terms of existing political and economic structures, patterns of class, gender and ethnoregional relations, demographic change (including migration patterns) and changing land use patterns, in
areas with varied resource endowments. The role of multi-national conglomerates in land control and the
new forms of land conflicts that these generate in former settler colonies, rural enclaves and in urban areas
will need special attention. Moreover the ideological and material interest of various political parties and
other civil society formations in the social relations shaped by land inequalities need examination. This
framework could be used to examine the social basis of land struggles and land policy reforms, and the
ideologies, strategies and results of redistributive land reforms.
The politics of land, state-civil society relations, and land movements
Researchers could also focus on the role of the state and civil society in land reforms in the context of
social justice, poverty eradication, economic development and national autonomy. The effects of neoliberal economic policies on the erosion of basic land rights could be queried. A deeper understanding of
state-civil society relations over land control and of social movements which struggle for land in relation
to social dislocation, increased poverty and insecurity over land and natural resource property rights, in
relation to elite and state power, is required. Research could explore whether and how varied social
movements have re-emerged as a potential force for endogenous or alternate land reform strategies.
This research theme could trace how various land conflicts are induced by the state, ‘civil society
organisations’ and ‘customary’ institutions through public policy, including issues of weak coordination,
the conflicting interests of different arms of the state and various classes, and the lack of capacity to effect
land reforms. Furthermore land problems which arise out of opportunistic decentralisation processes and
contradictory local land management structures, and their contestation by non-state actors will need to be
elucidated. The role of political parties in land struggles, including the wider power struggles to control
state machineries and various political constituencies requires special research attention.
132
Gender relations, access to land and tenure
The entire research should entail focused and cross-cutting assessment of gender based inequities in
access to and control of land, the gender biases of land tenure institutions and land markets, and the power
structures which underlie these. Gender based discrimination patterns in local land administration
processes managed by the state, traditional authorities, and other local land committee structures, need to
be explored. Specific concerns here include, unfair land allocation processes, unclear rules and regulations
governing land tenure and use rights, and inequitable systems of access to related resources. Particular
questions on the security of land tenure for women and struggles for access to land in relation to equitable
access to water resources, various infrastructures and agrarian market institutions in terms of emerging
rural differentiation will need detailed empirical assessment. All these aspects need to be assessed in
relation to wider gender and class struggles, and the broader power structures which reproduce gender
inequality. The emergence of varied and class differentiated movements to redress women’s land rights,
including the nature of recent attempts to include gender issues in national land policies and other direct
actions, should be examined.
Land tenure, property rights and land markets
The research should investigate the complex forms of tenure relations imposed on rural Africa in relation
to the land tenures demanded by various classes and groups, including the landless, the land-short, large
scale farmers, women, farm workers and other claimants. Specific research questions on land rights and
tenure which need to be explored include current efforts to shift property rights towards statutory
leaseholds and/or freehold rights, new forms of accessing land, including through patronage secured
through ruling lineages, local leaders, state structures, informal ‘land markets’ and “illegal” land
occupations. Special attention will need to be paid to the salient emergence of different forms of land
markets, their operations and effects in both formal private land property tenure regimes and in customary
land tenure regimes. The sources of influence to create land markets and their interests, as well as the
impacts of land markets on investment, productivity, ‘livelihoods’ and access to finance also need to be
examined in the wider context of the marginalisation of the rural and urban poor.
Land use and extroverted accumulation processes
This research should explore the extent to which export oriented land uses marginalise local development
and generate land conflicts, as well as how food imports distort land use towards similar effects. The
impacts of agrarian trade relations on land use need to be revisited more thoroughly. In this context, the
research should examine whether large commercial farming is growing and how it receives priority in
133
national resource allocations, vis-à-vis the related changes in land use, agrarian systems and development
strategy. The impact of this on the peasantries in terms of land rights, labour processes and broader social
welfare should be explored. Research could also examine whether smaller sized farms tend to use their
land more productively, in terms of yields per land unit and the use of labour, as well as how ‘selfexploitation’ of domestic labour (especially of females) in peasant households contributes towards
comparatively ‘better’ small farmer performances. The extent to which the focus on large farms for
agricultural “modernisation” has become a constraint to progressive land reform needs exploration.
The manner in which indigenous capitalist farmers emerge, including their socio-economic and political
networks, and their influence on macro-economic and agricultural policy regimes, in terms of the
allocation of resources such as credit, foreign currency and infrastructure, needs empirical elucidation.
Research could explore how these policies have stimulated new land uses based upon expanding
traditional and non-traditional agricultural exports, and whether large scale farmers have consolidated
their position in an increasingly market-oriented conception of Africa's land question.
The land use research theme could also examine how ‘discourses’ and policies on environmental
sustainability support the growth of both the concentration of land and natural resource allocation for
ecotourism and other resource exploitation monopolies, and how the benefits of such land uses accrue to
external capital. The persistence of top down land use regulations based upon received theories of
environmental public goods and ecological processes, and how these direct and constrain mainly small
and poor farmers’ land use objectives, should be interrogated. The role of environmental movements and
scientific initiatives in re-enforcing the regulation of land use against local objectives, as well as
resistance to this, also needs to be examined.
The urban land question
The various land questions and themes outlined above need to be explored not only in their rural context
but also in relation to their incidence in urban areas, including their rural-urban interface. This should
include structured empirical exposition of emerging urban land occupations and informal settlements, and
the new forms of urban land bidding and related land administration problems. The underlying logic of
semi-proletarianisation and urban migration, and the role of the state and elites in urban and peri-urban
land accumulation processes, as well as the new generation of urban land questions and conflicts that
these processes evoke, should receive special attention.
134
All these research themes could explore how the land question has been treated by ‘donors’ in the context
of the failure of African agriculture and rural development, and the widespread persistence of rural
poverty. This enquiry could examine whether rural poverty reduction strategies, as proscribed by the neoliberal market based developmental agenda, address the land question in relation to basic social
reproduction. The role of donor agencies in determining land policies through their support (or lack of it)
to particular government policies, particular tendencies in civil society and the private sector can be
treated as a cross-cutting research issue which elucidates the international context of Africa’s land
question.
7.1 Concluding remark
The land question and land reforms in Africa have evolved over a long period. However most research on
land has been scattered by disciplinary and topical fads, and has tended to neglect the emergence of
critical land conflicts. The structures and processes that drive the land question and the demand for land
reform appear to increasingly shape political agendas in Africa. Yet most land policies do not adequately
address the marginalisation of the poor. While the role of social movements in driving land reforms
cannot be idealised, the empirical record of both progressive and retrogressive struggles for land reform
suggest that their importance cannot be underestimated. Attempts to assess the evolution of the African
land questions, including their class dynamics and the social movements that condition them, must
necessarily be grounded in thorough empirical understanding of the political and economic context in
which the peasantry, agrarian capitalists and markets have emerged in the various regions of Africa. This
study, the research agenda proposed here and the appended bibliography could provide a useful step in
contributing to an improved understanding of Africa’s land question.
135
8.0 References
Abdullah, I. 1997. “Bush path to destruction: the origin and character of the Revolutionary United Front
(RUF/SL)” Africa Development 22 (3/4) 45-76.
Abutudu, I. M. 2002. Peasant Organisations and grassroots Empowerment I Nigeria: Limits and
Possibilities. In Romdhane and Moyo (editors) Peasant Organisations and the Democratisation
Process in Africa.
Adams, M. 2000. Breaking Ground: Development Aid for Land Reform, Overseas Development Institute,
London.
Agyeman, D. K. 1998. “Ethnic Conflicts and Politics in Ghana.” In Okwudiba Nnoli, ed. Ethnic Conflicts
in Africa. Dakar, Senegal. p.183-204.
Alexander, J. 2003. ‘Squatters’, Veterans and the State in Zimbabwe. In Amanda Hammar, Brain
Raftopoulos and Stig Jensen (eds) “Zimbabwe’s Unfinished Business: Rethinking Land, State and
Nation in the Context of Crisis. Weaver Press.
Aliber, M. and Mokoena, R. 2003. The land question in contemporary South Africa. In John Daniel,
Adam Habib and Roger Southall (eds) State of the nation South Africa 2003-2004. HSRC press.
Pp 330-346.
Alinon, K. 2003. Land Issues in the Core Development Agenda: The West African Situation. Paper
presented at the Pan African Programme for Land and Resource Rights (PAPLRR) Fourth
Workshop, in South Africa, May 2003.
Amalric, F. 1998. Sustainable Livelihoods, Entrepreneurship, Political Strategies and Governance.
Development 42(3)
Amanor K. 1992. Agrarian Land Reform, Labour and Sustainable Development in West Africa. Presented
at the WSSD conference.
Amanor K. 2003. Land and Sustainable Development in West Africa, Africa Institute for Agrarian
Studies, Harare, Zimbabwe, working paper
Amin, S. 1972. Neocolonialism in West Africa, Hammondsworth, U.K.
Andre, C. and Platteau, J. P. 1995. Land Tenure under Endurable Stress or the Failure of Evolutionary
Mechanisms: the Tragic Case of Rwanda, Namur: Faculty of Economics, University of Namur.
Arrighi, G. 1973. ‘International Corporations, Labour Aristocracies, and Economic Development in
Tropical Africa’, in Arrighi, G. and Saul, J. (eds.), Essays on The Political Economy of Africa,
New York.
Ault, D. and Gilbert, R. 1979. “The Development of Individual Rights to Property in Tribal Africa,” in
Journal of Land and Economics, No. 22 (pp. 163-182).
136
Barrows, R. and Roth, M. 1990. “Land Tenure and Investment in African Agriculture: Theory and
Evidence”, Journal of Modern African Studies 28 (2): 265–297.
Barry, T. 1987. Roots of Rebellion: Land and Hunger in Central America. Boston South End Press.
Bartra, R. 1976. “¡Si los campesinos se extinguen!” Historia y Sociedad, No. 8, Winter.
Bassett, T. J. 1993 Introduction: The land question and agricultural transformation in Sub-Saharan
Africa. In Land in African Agrarian Systems, eds. T. J. Bassett and D. E. Crummey. The
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Basu, 1996. “The Market For Land: An Analysis of Interim Transactions”, Journal of Development
Economics 20 (1):163-177.
Bernstein, H. 1996/7. Agrarian Questions. Essays in Appreciation of T J Byres, Special Issue of Journal
of Peasant Studies, 24 (1/2).
Bernstein, H. 2002. Agrarian Reform after Developmentalism? Presentation at the Conference on
Agrarian Reform and Rural Development: Taking Stock. Social Research Centre of the American
University in Cairo, October 14-15 2001.
Bernstein, H. 2004. Rural Land and Land Conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Sam Moyo and Paris Yeros
(eds) Reclaiming the Land: The Resurgence of Rural Movements in Africa, Asia and Latin
America, Forthcoming Book. Zed Publishers.
Berry, S. 1984. “The Food Crisis and Agrarian Change in Africa: A Review Essay”, African Studies
Review 27 (2): 59-112.
Berry, S. 1988. “Concentration without Privatization? Some Consequences of Changing Patterns of Rural
Land Control in Africa,” in Land and Society in Contemporary Africa, R. E. Downs & S. P Reyna
(eds.). Hanover: University Press of New England.
Berry, S. 1993. No Condition is Permanent: The Social Dynamics of Agrarian Change in sub-Saharan
Africa, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Binswanger, 1993. “Power Distortions, Revolt and Reform in Agricultural and Relations” Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Bishop, J. and Scoones, I. 1994. Beer and Baskets: The Economics of Women’s Livelihoods in
Ngamiland, Botswana, IIED Research Series, Volume 3, London: International Institute for
Environment and Development.
Borras J., Saturnino. 2001. “Questioning Market-led Agrarian Reform” (working Draft, 25 Jan., ISS, The
Hague).
Bosserup, E. 1981. Population and Technological Change, Chicago; University of Chicago Press.
Bouis, H. and Haddad, L. 1990. Effects of Agricultural Commercialisation on Land Tenure, Household
Resource Allocation and Nutrition in the Phillipines IFPRI Research Report No 79 Washington
DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Braun, von J. and Kennedy, E. 1994. Agricultural Commercialisation, Economic Development, and
Nutrition Baltimore, Madison: Johns Hopkins University Press for IFPRI.
137
Brockett, C. D. 1998. Land Power and Poverty: Agrarian Transformation and Political Control in Central
America, Boulder, Westview Press
Bromley, D. 1989. Property Relations and Economic Development: The Other Land Reform, World Bank
17.
Bruce, J. 1994. Individualization, titling, and registration of land rights and national land policy in
Tanzania. Report prepared for the Land Policy Component of the Forest Resources Management
Project, Tanzania: Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development. Dar-es-Salaam,
Tanzania.
Bruce, J. W. 1986. Land Tenure Issues in Project Design and Strategies for Agricultural Development in
sub-Saharan Africa, LTC Paper No 128, Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Land
Tenure Center.
Bruce, J. W. 1996. Country Profiles of Land Tenure, Madison: Africa Land Tenure Center, University of
Winsconsin. p60.
Bruce, J. W. and Migot-Adholla, S. E. (eds) (1994) Searching for Land Tenure Security in Africa,
Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company: 251-265.
Bruce, J.W., Migot-Adholla, S. E. and Atherton, J. 1994. The Findings and their Policy Implications:
Institutional Adaptation or Replacement. In Bruce, John and Shem Migot-Adholla (eds). 1994.
Searching for Land Tenure Security in Africa. Dubuque (Iowa): Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company.
Bryceson D. F., C Kay and J Mooi eds. 2000. Disappearing Peasantries? Rural Labour in Africa, Asia and
Latin America, London Intermediate Technology Publications.
Bryceson, D. F. (ed) 1995. Women Wielding the Hoe: Lessons from Rural Africa for Feminist Theory
and Development Practice, Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Bryceson, D. F. and Bank, L. 2001. ‘End of Era: Africa’s Development Policy Parallax’, Journal of
Contemporary African Studies, 19: 1
Byres, T. J. 1996. Capitalism from Above and Capitalism from Below. An Essay in Comparative Political
Economy, London: Macmillan
Byres, T.J., 1991. The Agrarian Question and Differing Forms of Capitalist Transition: An Essay with
Reference to Asia, in J. Breman and S. Mundle, eds Rural Transformation in Asia, Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Cancian, F. 1987. “Proletarianization in Zinacantan 1960-83,” in Household Economies and Their
Transformation, edited by Morgan Maclachan, Lanham Md, University Press of America.
Carter, M. and Wiebe, K. D. (1990) “Access to Capital and its Impact on Agrarian Structure and
Productivity in Kenya” American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Chabal, P. and Daloz, J. 1999. Africa works: Disorder as political instrument. African Issues. Villiers
publications. London N3.
138
Chambati, W. and Moyo, S. 2003. Land Reform and the Political Economy of Agricultural Labour,
mimeo, Harare: African Institute for Agrarian Studies.
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Some Working Definitions.
Development 41 (3), September.
Cheater, A. 1981. "Women and Their Participation in Commercial Agricultural Production: The Case of
Medium-Size Freehold in Africa." Development and Change 12: 349-377.
Cheater, A. 1988, “The Ideology of communal’ Land Tenure in Zimbabwe: Mythogenia Enacted?”
Forthcoming in Africa.
Chitiyo, T. 2000. Land Violence and Compensation: Reconceptualising Zimbabwe’s Land and War
Veterans Debate, Track Two, Vol. 9, No. 1.
Collier, P. 2000. Doing Well out of War: An Economic Perspective in Greed and Grievance: Economic
Agendas in Civil Wars. Berdal, M. and Malone, M. (editors). International Peace Acad
Cope, N. (1990) "The Zulu 'Petit Bourgeoisie' and Zulu Nationalism in the 1920s: origins of Inkatha",
Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol 16, no3.
Cross, C. 1997. ‘Rural Land Tenure Reform: Surrounded by Hungry Allocators’, Indicator South Africa,
14: 2:
Cross, C. 1999. ‘Women and Land in the Rural Crisis’, Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity,
42: 12−27.
Cross, C., Mngadi, T., Sibanda, S. and Jama V. 1996. ‘Making a Living Under Land Reform: Weighing
Up the Chances in KwaZulu-Natal’, in Land, Labour and Livelihoods in Rural South Africa,
Volume II, edited by Michael Lipton, Frank Ellis and Merle Lipton, Durban: Indicator Press.
Davies, J., M. Richards and Cavendish W. 1999. Beyond the Limits of PRA: A Comparison of
Participatory and Conventional Economic Research Method in the Analysis of Ilala Palm Use in
Southeastern Zimbabwe, London: Overseas Development Institute.
De Janvry, Alain, Nigel Key, and Elisabeth Sadoulet. 1997. Agricultural and Rural Policy in Latin
America: New Directions and New Challenges. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resource
Economics, University of California at Berkely.
Deininger, K. 1998. Implementing Negotiated Land Reform: Initial Experience from Colombia, Brazil
and South Africa, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Land Tenure in the
Developing World with a Focus on Southern Africa, 27-29 January, University of Cape Town.
Delville P. L. et al. 2002 Negotiating Access to Land in West Africa: A Synthesis of Findings from
Research on Derived Rights Land, London: International Institute for Environment and
Development.
139
Delville, P.L, 1999. Harmonising formal law and customary land rights in French-speaking West Africa,
International Institute for Environment and Development (iied) issue paper no. 86.
Delville, P.L. 2000. Harmonising Formal Law and Customary Land Rights in French-Speaking West
Africa: 97-121
Delville, P.L. 2002. Towards an Articulation of Land Regulation Modes? Recent Progress and Issues at
Stake (French Speaking West Africa) paper presented at ---DFID, 1999. ‘Land Rights and Sustainable Development in sub-Saharan Africa: lessons and ways
forward in Land Tenure policy”, Report of a Delegate Workshop on Land Tenure Policy in
African nations, Sunningdale, UK, 16-19 Feb.
Dickerman, C. W. et al. 1987. Securing of Tenure and Land Registration in Africa: Literature Review and
Synthesis, Madison: Land Tenure Center.
Egwu, S. G. 1998. “Agrarian Question and Rural Ethnic Conflicts in Nigeria.” In Okwudiba Nnoli, ed.
Ethnic Conflicts in Africa. Dakar, Senegal. p 53-78.
Eicher and Baker 1982. Research on Agricultural Development in sub-Saharan Africa: A Critical Survey,
MSU International Development Paper No 1, East Lansing: Michigan State University.
EL-Ghomery, M. R. 1999. Affluence and Poverty in the Middle East, Geneva: UNRISD.
El-Ghonemy, M. R. (1998) Land, Food, Rural Development in North Africa, London: Westview Press.
Escobar, A and Sonia A. eds. (1992), The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity,
Strategy, and Dermocracy, Boulder CO, Westview Press.
ESS, 2002. Food and Agriculture Indicators. Country: South Africa.
Esteva, G. 1999. “The Zapatistas and People’s Power.” Capital & Class. 68 (Summer): 153-183.
EU Land Policy Guidelines, 2004. Guidelines for support to land design and land reform processes in
developing countries. Final Draft for Consultation. EU Task Force on Land Tenure.
Eveleth, A. and Mngxitama, A. The struggles of South Africa’s Landless. Article for a forthcoming
edition of Development Update. Mimeo. Pp 149-166.
Feder, E. 1971. The Rape of the peasantry: Latin America’s Landholding System, New York Doubleday
and Company Incorporated.
Feder, G. and Noronha, R. 1987. Land Rights Systems and Agricultural Development in sub-Saharan
Africa, Agriculture and Rural Development Department Report No. ARU 64, Washington DC:
World Bank.
Feder, G., T. Ohchan, Y. Chalamwong, and C. Hongladaron. 1988. Land Policies and Farm Productivity
in Thailand. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fernandes, B. M. 2001. The Occupation as a Form of Access to Land. Paper prepared for delivery at the
XXIII International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association. Washington, D.C.,
September 6-8, 2001.
Fleuret, A. 1988. Some Consequences of Tenure and Agrarian Reform in Taita Taveta, Kenya. In Downs,
R.E. and S.P. Ryna (eds) Land and society in Contemporary Africa. London: University Press of
New England.
140
Flintan, F and Tamrat, I. 2002. “Spilling Blood over Water? The Case of Ethiopia” In Jeremy Lind and
Kathryn Sturman, eds. Scarcity and Surfeit: The Ecology of Africa’s Conflicts. ISS, Pretoria,
South Africa. p 243-319.
Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) 1998. Statistics of Land and Water Use and Agricultural
Production in the Middle East and North African Countries, Rome: FAO.
Food and Agricultural Organisation, 2001. FAOSTAT, Rome: FAO.
Food and Agricultural Organisation, 2001a. Forest Resources Assessment 2000, Rome: FAO.
Geschiere, P and Nyamnjoh, F. 2000. Capitalism and Autochthony: The Seesaw of Mobility and Belong.
In Jean and John L. Comaroff (eds) Millennial capitalism and the Culture of Neoliberalism.. Duke
University Press. Public Culture. Society for Transnational Cultural Studies 12 (2): 423-452.
Ghai, D and S. Radwan. 1983. Agrarian Policies and Rural Poverty in Africa. International Labour
Organisation. Geneva
Ghimire K. (ed) 2001. Whose Land? Civil Perspectives on Land Reform and Rural Poverty Reduction:
Regional Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America, UNRIDS, GENEVA.
Ghimire K.B. 2001; Regional Perspectives on Land Reform: Considering the role of Civil Society
Organisations, chapter in Ghimire K.B. 2001, 2001 (ed), p 13-55.
Ghimire, K. B. 2000. “Changing Rural Power Structures through Land Tenure Reforms and International
Partnerships”, (Manuscript UNRISD, Geneva).
Goldsmith, P., Abura, L and Switzer, J. 2002. “Oil and Water in Sudan.” In Jeremy Lind and Kathryn
Sturman, eds. Scarcity and Surfeit: The Ecology of Africa’s Conflicts. ISS, Pretoria, South Africa.
p. 187-229.
Government of Malawi, 2000. Malawi National Land Policy, Ministry of Lands, Housing, Physical
Planning and Surveys, November 20, 2000, Malawi.
Guere, B., Ouedraogo, H., and Toulmin, C. 2002. West African Regional Overview, Integrating Land into
the Broader Development Agenda.
Gwynne, R and Kay, C. (eds). 1999. Latin America Transformed, New York Oxford University Press.
Haugerud, A. 1983. The consequences of Land Tenure Reform among Small-Holders in the Kenya
Highlands. Rural Africana, 15-16: 65-90.
Haugerud, A. 1989. Land Tenure and Agrarian Change in Kenya, Africa, 59:1: 61-90.
Helmore, K. and Naresh Singh. 2001. Sustainable Livelihoods: Building on the Wealth of the Poor, West
Hartford CT, Kumarian Press.
Hendler, P. 1992. ‘Living in Apartheid’s Shadow: Residential Planning for Africans in the PWV region,
1970−1990’, Urban Forum, 3: 2:
Hilhorst, T. 2000. Women’s land rights: Current Developments in Sub-Sahara Africa. In Toulmin, C and
Quan, J. (eds). Evolving land rights, policy and tenure in Africa. DFID/IED/NRI, London.
Hill, P. 1963. The Migrant Cocoa-Farmers of Southern Ghana, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopkins, A.G. 1973. An Economic History of west Africa.
Huizer, G. 1973. Peasant Rebellion in Latin America, London, Penguin Books.
141
IFAD 1999 “Assessment of Rural Poverty in the Eastern and Southern African Region”, document
circulated at the workshop on Rural Poverty, Rome, 24-25 January 2001.
International Labour Organisation, 1996. World Employment 1996/7: National Policies in a Global
Context, Geneva: ILO.
Jayne, T. et al. 2002. Smallholder Income and Land Distribution in Africa: Implications For Poverty
Reduction Strategies, USAID
Jewessiewick, B. 1989. “The Formation of Political Culture of Ethnicity in the Belgian Congo.” In Leroy
Vail, ed. The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa. alk paper, South Africa. p 241-254.
Kairaba, A. 2002. “Rwanda Country Case Study”, paper presented at the Regional Workshop on Land
Issues in Africa and the Middle East, Kampala, Uganda, 29 April-2 May 2002.
Kanyinga, K. 2000. Re-Distribution from above. The Politics of Land Rights and squatting in Coastal
Kenya. A report from the research programme: “The political and Social Context of Structural
Adjustment in Africa”. Research Report no. 115. Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. Uppsala 2000.
Kanyinga, K. and Lumumba, O. 2003. The Land Question and Sustainable Development in Kenya. Draft
paper for the Regional Land And World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Dialogue
Initiative: An African Perspective on Land and Sustainable Development.
Kanyongolo, F. E. 2004. Land Occupations in Malawi: Challenging the Neoliberal Legal Order. In Sam
Moyo and Paris Yeros (eds) Reclaiming the Land: The Resurgence of Rural Movements in Africa,
Asia and Latin America, Forthcoming Book. Zed Publishers.
Kasanga, K. Land Resource Management for Agricultural Development in Ghana, London: RICS
Foundation.
Kautsky, Karl. 1986. A questao agrarian. Sao Paulo: Nova Cultural, (1899).
Kay, C. 1999. Rural development: from Agrarian Reform to Neoliberalism and Beyond, in Robert
Gwynne and Cristobal Kay eds.
Kay, C. 2000. ‘Latin America’s Agrarian Transformation: Peasantization and Proletarianization’, in
Disappearing Peasantries?, edited by Bryceson et al., London: ITDG Publishing.
Khalid, A. El Amin. 2002. Peasant Organisations, Participation and the State: Two Case Studies from
Rural Sudan. In Romdhane and Moyo (editors) Peasant Organisations and the Democratisation
Process in Africa.
Kiamba, C.M. 1985. Introduction and Evolution of Private Landed Property in Kenya, Development and
Change, Vol. 20:1.
Kock, E., Massyn, P. J. and van Niekerk A. 2002. ‘The Fate of Land Reform in Southern Africa: The
Role for the State, the Market and Civil Society’, in Whose Land? Civil Society Perspectives on
Land Reform and Rural Poverty Reduction: Regional Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin
America, edited by K.B. Ghimire and B.H. Moore, IFAD. The Popular Coalism UNRISD
142
Lahiff, E. and Rugege, S. 2002. Land Redistribution; Neglecting the urban and rural poor.
http://www.communitylawcentre.org.za/ser/esr2002/2002july_land.php
Lahiffa, E. and Rugege, S. 2002. ‘A Critical Assessment of State Land Redistribution Policy in the Light
of the Grootboom Judgment’, New Agenda: South African Journal of Social Policy and Economic
Policy, 3: 7.
Lastarria-Cornhiel Susana. 2002. Concepts of Property Rights and Citizenship: Market Economy,
Customary Tenure, and Gender. Land Tenure Centre. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Presentation for Conference on Conflicts over Land and Water in Africa: Questions of Citizenship
and Identity. Centre for Development Research Copenhagen, Denmark (28- 29 November 2002)
Lawry, S. W. (1993) “Transactions in Cropland held under Customary Tenure in Lesotho”, in Basset, T.J.
and Crummey, D.E. (eds) Land in African Agrarian Systems, Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press: 57-74.
Le Roy, E. 1998. “Les Orientations des Reformes Fanciers depuis le debut des Annes Quatre-Vingt” in
Lavigne Delville (ed) Quelles Politiques Foncieres en Afrique Rurale? Paris: Ministere de la
Cooperation/Karthala.
Lenin, V.I. 1964 [1899], The Development of Capitalism in Russia, Second Edition, Moscow: Progress
Publishers.
Lenin, V.I. 1985. O desenvolvimento do capitalismo na Russia. Sao Paulo: Nova Cultural, (1899).
Levin, R. and D. Weiner (1994) Community Perspectives on Land and Agrarian Reform in South Africa,
final project report prepared for MacArthur Foundation, Chicago, Illinois (USA).
Lumumba, O. 2003. The Land and Sustainable Development in East Africa. Draft paper for the Regional
Land And World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Dialogue Initiative: An African
Perspective on Land and Sustainable Development.
Lunning, H.A. 1965. “The Input of Socio-Economic Factors on the Land Tenure Pattern in Northern
Nigeria”, Journal of Administration Overseas, IV(3): 173-182.
Mackenzie, F. 1990. Gender and land rights in Murang’a District, Kenya, Journal of Peasant Studies, 17,
pp. 609-643.
Mafeje, A. 1985. Peasants in Sub-Saharan Africa. Africa Development Vol. X, No. 3.
Mafeje, A. 1991. African Households and Prospects for Agricultural Revival Sub-Saharan Africa,
Codesria Working Paper1/91.
Mafeje, A. 1997. ‘The Agrarian Question in Southern Africa and Accumulation from Below’, SAPEM,
10: 5.
Mafeje, A. 1999. Imperatives and Options for Agricultural Development in Africa: Peasant or Capitalist
Revolution? (unpublished essay)
Mafeje, A. 2003. The Agrarian question, Access to land and Peasant Responses in sub-Sahara Africa.
UNRID Programme papers on Civil Society and Social Movements.
Magaramombe, G. 2003. Resource Base and farm Production: Farm Labour Relations, Use and Needs,
mimeo., African Institute for Agrarian Studies (AIAS), Harare.
143
Malcolm, D.M. 1953. Sukumuland: An African People and their Country, London: Oxford University
Press.
Mamdani, M. 1986. “Extreme But Not Exceptional: Towards an Analysis of the Agrarian Question in
Uganda” Journal of Peasant studies 14 (2): 191-225
Mamdani, M. 1996. “Citizens and Subjects: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism”
Princetown University Press. UK.
Mamdani, M. 2001. When victims become killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda.
Princeton University Press.
Manchuelle, F.1997. Willing Migrants: Soninke Labour Diasporas, 1848-1960, Athens: Ohio University
Press and London: James Curry.
Marcus, T., Eales, K. and Wildschut, A. 1996. Land Demand in the New South Africa, Durban: Land and
Agriculture Policy Centre, Indicator Press, University of Natal.
Marks, S. 1989. “Patriotism, Patriarchy and Purity: Natal and the Politics of Zulu ethnic Consciousness.”
In Leroy Vail, ed. The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa. alk paper, South Africa.
Marongwe, N. 2003. Farm Occupations and Occupiers in the New Politics of Land in Zimbabwe. In
Amanda Hammar, Brain Raftopoulos and Stig Jensen (eds) “Zimbabwe’s Unfinished Business:
Rethinking Land, State and Nation in the Context of Crisis. Weaver Press.
Mashinini, V. 2000. The Land Problem in Lesotho: Focus on Contestation and Conflicts, Paper Presented
at the SARIPS/Sapes Trust Annual Colloquium, Harare, Sept. 24-27
Maxwell, D. 1995. “Alternative Food Security Strategy: A Household Analysis of Urban Agriculture in
Kampala”, World Development 23 (10): 1669-1681.
Maxwell, D. and Wiebe, K. 1998. Land Tenure and Food Security: A Review of Concepts, Evidence and
Methods, Research Paper No 129, Madison: University of Wisconsin.
May, J., Posel, D. and Carter, M. 1995. The Composition and Persistence of Poverty in Rural South
Africa: An Entitlements Approach to Poverty, Research Report No. 15, Land and Agriculture
Policy Centre, Johannesburg: LAPC.
MDC, 2004. RESTART: Our Path to Social Justice. The MDC’s Economic Programme for
Reconstruction, Stabilisation, Recovery and Transformation.
Migot–Adholla, S. E. 1994. “Land, Security of Tenure and Productivity in Ghana”, in Bruce, J. W. and
Migot-Adholla, S. E. (eds) (1994) Searching for Land Tenure Security in Africa, Dubuque:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company: 169-198.
Migot-Adholla, S.E., Hazell, P., Blarel, B. and Place, F. 1991. Indigenous Land Rights Systems in SubSaharan Africa: A constraint on productivity? World Bank Economic Review, 5 (1): 155-175.
Migot-Adholla, S.E., Place, F and Oluoch-Kosura, W. 1994. Security of Tenure and Land Productivity in
Kenya. In Bruce, J.W. and Migot-Adholla, S.E. (eds) Searching for Land Tenure Security in
Africa. Dubuque IA: Kendal/Hunt Publishing Co.
144
Mkandawire, T. 2002. “The Terrible toll of post- colonial “rebel movements” in Africa: Towards an
explanation of the violence against the peasantry”, Journal of Modern African Studies 40.2 pp181215.
Mkandawire, T. 2003. The Terrible Toll of Post-Colonial “Rebel Movements” in Africa: Towards an
Explanation of the Violence Against the Peasantry, pp 1-33.
Molomo, M.G. 2003. The land Question and Sustainable Development in Botswana,. Draft paper for the
Regional Land And World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Dialogue Initiative: An
African Perspective on Land and Sustainable Development.
Moyo, S .1987. ‘The Land Question in Zimbabwe’, in Mandaza (ed.), Zimbabwe: The Political Economy
of Transition, Codesria, Dakar.
Moyo, S and B. Romdhane (eds) 2002. Peasant Organisations and Democratisation in Africa, Codesria
Book Series.
Moyo, S and Sukume, C. 2004. Agricultural sector and agrarian development strategy. A paper prepared
for World Bank (Zimbabwe).
Moyo, S, 2003. ‘The Interaction of Market and Compulsory Land Acquisition Processes with Social
Action in Zimbabwe’s Land Reform’, in Ibbo Mandaza and Dani Nabudere (eds.), Pan Africanism
and Integration in Africa, Sapes Books, Harare, forthcoming.
Moyo, S. 1987. “The Land Question in Zimbabwe” in Mandaza, I. (ed.), Zimbabwe: The Political
Economy of Transition, Dakar: CODESRIA.
Moyo, S. 1995. The Land Question in Zimbabwe, Harare: SAPES Books.
Moyo, S. 1999. The Political Economy of Land Acquisition in Zimbabwe, 1990-1999, JSAS, vol. 26, No.
1, pp. 5-28.
Moyo, S. 2000. ‘Land Reform Under Structural Adjustment in Zimbabwe; Land Use Change in
Mashonaland Provinces, Nordiska Afrika Institutet Uppsala.’
Moyo, S. 2001. The Land Occupation movement and Democratization in Zimbabwe: Contradictions of
neo-liberalism. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp 311-330.
Moyo, S. 2001a, ‘The Land Occupation Movement and Democratisation in Zimbabwe: Contradictions of
Neoliberalism’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 30, 2: 311–30.
Moyo, S. 2002. ‘Peasant Organisations and Rural Civil Society in Africa: An Introduction’ in Moyo, S
and B. Romdhane (eds) Peasant Organisations and Democratisation in Africa, Codesria Book
Series
Moyo, S. 2002. The Land Question And Land Reform In Southern Africa, Paper Presented at a
Conference on ‘Implementing Development: The Practice and Effectiveness of Development
145
Policies in South Africa’, hosted by the National Institute for Economic Policy (NIEP), 18-19
April, Pretoria, South Africa
Moyo, S. 2003.The Politics of Land Distribution and Race Relations in Southern Africa. In Forthcoming
book on “Racism and Public Policy” to be published by Pallgrave Press. The paper prepared for
UNRISD.
Moyo, S. 2003b. Land, Food security and Sustainable Development in Africa. Paper prepared for the
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), Sustainable Development Division,
Ethiopia.
Moyo, S. and Kirkby J. ‘Environmental Security, Livelihoods and Entitlements’ in Neil Middleton, Phil
O’Keefe and Rob Visser (eds) Negotiating Poverty: New Directions, Renewed Debate, Pluto
Press, November 2001.
Moyo, S. and Matondi P. B., 2003. Experiences with Market Based Land Reform in Zimbabwe,
Environmental Defence, Washington, forthcoming.
Moyo, S. and Prosper B. Matondi. 2003. The Politics of Land Reform in Zimbabwe, in Baregu and
Landsberg (eds) From Cape to Congo, IPA, New York.
Moyo, S. and Yeros, P. 2004. Land Occupations and Land Reform in Zimbabwe: Towards the National
Democratic Revolution. In Sam Moyo and Paris Yeros (eds)
Reclaiming the Land: The
Resurgence of Rural Movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America. London, Zed Books,
Forthcoming.
Moyo, S. forthcoming. Fast Track Land And Agrarian Reform In Zimbabwe Contradictions Of Neoliberalism.
Moyroud, C and Katunga, J. 2002. “Coltan Exploration in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC).” In Jeremy Lind and Kathryn Sturman, eds. Scarcity and Surfeit: The Ecology of Africa’s
Conflicts. ISS, Pretoria, South Africa. p 159-185.
Mullins, D. 2001. “Land Reform, Poverty Reduction and HIV/AIDS”, Oxfam GB Regional Management
Centre, Pretoria, South Africa, paper presented at the SARPN conference on Land Reform and
Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, 4th and 5th June.
Murombedzi, J, 1999. “Land Expropriation, Communal Tenure and Common Property Resource
Management in Southern Africa”, The Common Property Resources Digest, October 1999.
National Land Committee (NLC). Black rural and Poor: Rural Profile.
http://www.nlc.co.za/pamphlets/lr4.htm.
Negrao, J. 1999. “The Mozambican Land Campaign, 1997-1999, Workshop on the Associative
Movement, Maputo, 14 December”, in Oxfam GB, Land Rights in Africa, http:
//www.Oxfam.org.uk/landrights.
Neocosmos, M. 1993. The Agrarian Question in Southern Africa and ‘Accumulation from Below’,
Uppsala: Nordiksa Afrikainstitutet.
Neocosmos, M. 2003. Ethnicity, State and Democracy in southern: A historical perspective on rural-based
nationalities. A chapter was presented at the conference on Dimensions of Economic and Political
Reform in Contemporary Africa at the Fairway Hotel, Kampala in April 1994 and published under
146
a different title as a working paper by the Centre for Development Research in Copenhagen, where
it was also presented in 1995.
North, 1990. Institutions, Institutionalized Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Okoth-Ogendo, H.W.O. 1996, Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: The Kenyan Experience.
Paper presented to a sub-regional workshop for East Africa held at ECA Headquarters, Addis
Ababa, 11 -15 March.
Oliveira, A. U. de. 1991. A agricultura componesa no Brasil. Sao Paulo: Contexto
Osaghae, E. E. 1998. ‘The Ethnic and Class Character of Political Conflicts in Liberia.” In Okwudiba
Nnoli, ed. Ethnic Conflicts in Africa. Dakar, Senegal. p. 131-157.
Ostrom, 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions For Collective Action, New York,
Cambridge University Press.
Otunnu and Laloyo, J. (no date). Accord Series “Causes and consequences of the war in Acholiland.”
www.cr~r.org/accord/uganda/accord11/theconflict.shtml,
Oyugi, W. O. 1998. “Ethnic Politics in Kenya.” In Okwudiba Nnoli, ed. Ethnic Conflicts in Africa. Dakar,
Senegal. p 287-309.
Palmer, R. 2000. “The Struggles Continue: Evolving Land Policy and Tenure Reforms in Africa – Recent
Policy and Implementation Process” in Toulmin, C. and Quan, J. (2000) Evolving Land Rights,
Tenure and Policy in sub-Saharan Africa, London: IIED and NRI.
Palmer, R. 2002. A Guide to, and Some Comments on, The World Bank’s Policy Research Report (PRR),
“Land Policy for Pro-Poor Growth and Development”
Papstein, R. 1989. “From Ethnic Identity to Tribalism: the Upper Zambezi Region of Zambia.” In Leroy
Vail, ed. The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa. alk paper, South Africa. p 372-394.
Patnaik, U.1999. The Long Transition: Essays on Political Economy.Pauls Press. New Delhi, India.
Peacenet-Kenya 2001. “Ethnic clashes in Kenya.” www.peacenet-Kenya.org/projects/ethniclashes.htm
Pearce, B. 1997. ‘Overview Paper on Land Reform in South Africa’, unpublished mimeo., December.
Petras, J. 2000. ‘Política Agrícola Estadunidense para a América Latina’, in Hegemonía dos Estados
Unidos no Novo Milênio, by James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.
Petras, James and Henry Veltmeyer. 2001. Are Latin American Peasant Movements Still a Force for
Change? Some New Paradigms Revisited. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 28 (2).
Petras, James. 1997a. MST and Latin America: The Revival of the Peasantry as a Revolutionary Force.
Canadian Dimension, 31 (3).
Petras, James. 1997b. The Resurgence of the Left. New Left Review No 223.
Petras, James. 1997c. Imperialism and NGOs in Latin America in Petras Essays in
English.www.rebelion.org/petras/English/ngola 170102.htm
147
Pieterse, E. 2003. Rhythms, patterning and articulations of social formations of South Africa. In David
Everatt and Vincent Maphai (eds), The real State Of The Nation: South Africa After 1990.
Interfund Development Upadate, Special Edition. Vol. 4 No. 3. Pp 101-136.
Place, F. 1995. The Role of Land and Tree Tenure in the Adoption of Agro-Forestry Technologies in
Zambia, Burundi, Uganda and Malawi: A Summary and Synthesis, Madison: Land Tenure Center,
University of Wisconsin.
Place, F. 2002. Land Markets in sub-Saharan Africa: Preconditions, Potentials and Limitations.
Platteau, J. P. 1992. Land Reform and Structural Adjustment in sub–Saharan Africa: Controversies and
Guidelines, FAO Economic and Social Development Paper No 107, Rome: FAO.
Platteau, J. P. 1996. “The Evolutionary Theory of Land Rights as Applied to sub-Saharan Africa: A
Critical Assessment”, Development and Change, Vol 27 no. 1: 29-86.
Platteau, J.P. 2000. “Does Africa Need Land Reform?” in Toulmin, C. and Quan, J. (2000) Evolving Land
Rights, Tenure and Policy in sub-Saharan Africa: 51-73
Quan, J. 2000. “Land Tenure, Economic Growth and Poverty in sub-Saharan Africa” Toulmin, C. and
Quan, J. (2000) Evolving Land Rights, Tenure and Policy in sub-Saharan Africa: 31-49.
Raftopoulos, B. 2003. The State in Crisis: Authoritarian Nationalism, Selective Citizenship and
Distortions of Democracy in Zimbabwe. In Amanda Hammar, Brain Raftopoulos and Stig Jensen
(eds) “Zimbabwe’s Unfinished Business: Rethinking Land, State and Nation in the Context of
Crisis. Weaver Press.
Rahmato D, 1991 – Peasant Organisations in Africa: Constraints and Potentials, CODESRIA Working
Paper 1/91, DakarWorld Bank 1989, Sub-Saharan Africa: Form Crisis to Sustainable Growth,
World Bank, Washington.
Reed, D. 2001. Economic Change, Governance and Natural Resource Wealth: The Political Economy of
Change in Southern Africa, London: Earthscan Publications.
Republic of South Africa, 1994. White Paper: A New Housing Policy and Strategy of the Government of
National Unity, Pretoria. Government Gazette.
Ribot, J. C. 2001. Local Actors, Powers and Accountability in African Decentralizations: A Review of
Issues, Paper Prepared for International Development Research Centre of Canada Assessment of
Social Policy Reforms Initiative: Ottawa.
Richards, A. 1982. Egypt’s Agricultural Development, 1800-1980: Technical and Social Changes,
Agricultural Development System Project, Westview Press, Colorado.
Richards, P. 2004. “New Wars” in West Africa: An Agrarian Question. Paper presented to seminars at the
Institute of Social Studies in Den Haag and at the Institute of African Studies in Copenhagen in
October 2003.
Rihan, M. and Nasr, M. 2001. “Prospects for Land Reform and Civil Society Movements in the Near East
and North Africa” in Ghimire, K. B. (ed) (2001) Whose Land? Civil Perspectives on Land Reform
and Rural Poverty Reduction: Regional Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America,
Geneva: UNRISD: 103-128.
148
Roden, D. 1971. “Changing Patterns of Land Tenure amoung the Nuba of Central Sudan”, Joumal of
Administration Overseas, 10 (4); 294 –309.
Rodney, W. 1982. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Harare, ZPH.
Roth, M. 1990. “An Analysis of Agrarian Structure and Land Use Patterns in Zimbabwe”, a background
paper for The Zimbabwe Agriculture Sector Memorandum for the World Bank, Land Tenure
Center, Wisconsin.
Sachikonye, L.M. 2003. The situation of Commercial Farm Workers after Land Reform in Zimbabwe, A
report for the FCTZ.
Scott, J. C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak; Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven and
London. Yale University Press.
Sen, A. 2004. On some issues regarding the agrarian consequences of current globalisation. Paper
presented to IDEAs conference on “The Economics of New Imperalism” 21-24 Tanuary, 2004. J.
NU, New Delhi, India.
Sender, J and Johnston, D. 2004. Searching for a Weapon of Mass production in Rural Africa:
Unconvincing Arguments for Land Reform. Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol 4. Nos.1 and 2,
January and April 2004. pp. 142-164.
Shipton, P. 1989. “How Private Property Emerges in Africa: Directed and Undirected Land Tenure
Reforms in Densely Settles Areas South of the Sahara,” (Report to the Bureau of Program and
Policy Coordination). Washington DC: U.S. Agency for International Development.
Shivji, I. 1989. The Concept of Human Rights in Africa, London: Codesria.
Shivji, I. 1991. "State and Constitutionalism: a new democratic perspective" in Shivji, Issa (ed.) State and
Constitutionalism: an African debate on democracy, Harare: SAPES.
Shivji, I. 1996. Grounding the Debate on Land: The National Land Policy and its Implications. Paper
Presented at a Workshop on the National Land Policy held at British Council Conference Hall,
Dar es Salaam, LARRI-HAKIARDHI.
Shivji, I. 1997. “Contradictory Perspectives on Rights and Justice in the Context of Land Tenure Reform
in Tanzania” paper presented at the conference on Cultural Transformations in Africa: legal,
religious and human rights issues, 11-13 March.
Shivji, I. 1998. Not Yet Democracy: Reforming Land Tenure in Tanzania. International Institute for
Environmental and Development (Drylands Programme), HAKIARDHI (Land Rights Research
and Resources Institute), and the Faculty of Law, University of Tanzania.
Shivji, I. G. 1999. The Land Acts 1999: A cause for celebration or a celebration of a cause?, Keynote
Address to the Workshop on Land, Morogoro, 19-20 February.
Shivji, I.G. and Kapinga, W. B. 1998. Maasai rights in Tanzania in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. International
Institute for Environmental and Development (Drylands Programme), HAKIARDHI (Land Rights
Research and Resources Institute), and the Faculty of Law, University of Tanzania.
Shivji, I.G., Moyo, S., Ncube, W and Gunby, D. 1998. “Draft National Land Policy for the Government
of Zimbabwe.” Discussion Paper. Harare: FAO and Ministry of Lands and Agriculture.
149
Sihlongonyane, M. F. 2004. Land Occupations in South Africa. In Sam Moyo and Paris Yeros (eds)
Reclaiming the Land: The Resurgence of Rural Movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
London, Zed Books, Forthcoming.
Simone, AbdouMaliq. 1998. Urban Processes and Change in Africa. CODESRIA Working Paper 3/97.
Published by CODESRIA Dakar, Senegal.
Statistics South Africa, 1999. Government publication.
Statistics South Africa. Rural Survey, 1997. http://www.statssa.gov.za
Submarian, J. 1996. “Eritrea Country Profile” in Bruce, J. W. (1996) Country Profiles of Land Tenure,
Madison: Africa Land Tenure Center, University of Winsconsin: 164-168.
Swynnerton, J. 1954. A plan to Intensify the Development of African Agriculture in Kenya, Colony and
Protectorate of Kenya, Government printers.
Thiesenhusen, William ed. 1989. Searching for Agrarian Reform in Latin America. Winchester MA,
Unwin Hyman.
Thiesenhusen, William. 1995. Broken Promises: Agrarian Reform and the Latin American Campesino,
Boulder Westview Press.
Thorpe Andy et al. 1995. Impacto del ajuste en el agro Hondureno, Tegucigalpa, Posgrado
Centroamericano en Economia de la Universidad Nacional Auotonoma de Honduras.
Titihola, S.T. 1987. “The State and Food Policies in Nigeria” Mkandawire, T. and Bouremane, N. (eds)
The State and Agriculture in Africa: Towards a Typology of African Economies, Senegal:
CODESRIA Publications: 354-375.
Toulmin, C and Quan, J. (eds). 2000. Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa. DFID/IIED.
NRI, London.
Toulmin, C. and Longbottom, J. 1997. “Managing Land Tenure and Resource Access in West Africa”,
report from a Regional Workshop held in Goree, Senegal, 18-22 November 1996.
Tsikata, D. 2001. Securing Women’s Interests Within Land Tenure Reforms: Recent Debates in Tanzania,
pp 1-50.
Tsikata, D.1991. Securing Women’s Interests within Land Tenure Reforms: Recent Debates in Tanzania.
Udo, R. A. 1969. Geographical regions of Nigeria. London.
Vail, L and White, L. 1989. “Tribalism in the Political History of Malawi.” In Leroy Vail the Creation of
Tribalism in Southern Africa. Malawi. p 151-195.
Van Den Brink, R. 2002. Land Policy and Land Reform in sub Saharan Africa: Consensus, Confusion and
Controversy. Presentation to the Symposium Land Redistribution in Southern Africa. Burgers
Park Hotel, Pretoria South Africa November.
Van der Ploeg, Jan Dowe. 1990. Labour, Markets and Agricultural Production. San Francisco, Westview
Press.
Veltmeyer, H. 1997. ‘New Social Movements in Latin America: The dynamics of class and Identity’, The
Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 25, n°1.
150
Veltmeyer, H. 2004. The Dynamics of land Occupation in South America. In Sam Moyo and Paris Yeros
(eds) Reclaiming the Land: The Resurgence of Rural Movements in Africa, Asia and Latin
America. London, Zed Books, Forthcoming.
Von Blackenburg, P. (1994) Large Commercial Farmers and Land Reform in Africa, London: Ashgate.
Watts, M. 1983. Silent Violence; Food, Famine and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria, Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Weiner D, et. al., 1985. Land Use and Agricultural Productivity in Zimbabwe, in the Journal of Modern
African Studies, Volume 23 Number 2.
Wiebe, K. 1992. Household Food Security and Cautious Commercialisation in Kenya
Wildschut, A. and Hulbert S., 1998. A Seed Not Sown: Prospects for Agrarian Reform in South Africa,
German Agro Action, and the National Land Committee, mimeo.
Woolcock, M and D. Narayan. 2000. Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research and
Policy. The World Bank Research observer 15(2), August.
World Bank, 1993; 1994. World Bank Economy Wide Policies and Environment: Emerging Lessons from
Experience, Washington DC, World Bank, Adjustment in Africa.
World Bank, 1995. Zimbabwe Achieving Shared Growth, Country Economic Memorandum, Vol. 2.
Washington DC: World Bank
World Bank, 1996, 1997. World Bank Development Report 1996, 1997. Washington DC, World Bank.
World Bank. 2002. Land Policy for Pro-Poor Growth and Development. World Bank.
Yeros, P. 2000. Peasant Struggles for Land and Security in Zimbabwe: A Global Moral Economy at the
Close of the Twentieth Century, Working paper.
Zalo,
L.
D.
2001.
Country
Case
Study
Ivory
Coast
http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/essdext.nsf/25ByDocName/CotedIvoirePaperEnglish/$FILE/Cote+d'Ivoire.pdf
by
Zimmermann, W. 1998. “Facing the Challenge of Implementing a New Land Policy – Lessons Learned in
the Context of International Cooperation” in Barry (ed) (1998) “Proceedings of the International
Conference on Land Tenure in the Developing World with a Focus on Southern Africa”, 27-29
January 1998, University of Cape Town.
151